Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant¡¯s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be ¡°a unilateral decision taken by the...

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant¡¯s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

At the relevant time, the Applicant was serving as Senior Coordination Officer for the Global Water Operators Partnerships Alliance (¡°GWOPA¡±), an alliance of partners promoting the Water Operators Partnership established by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. He was heading the GWOPA Secretariat and was sitting ex officio on the GWOPA Steering Committee as representative of the GWOPA Secretariat. The contested decisions were notified to the Applicant in two memoranda sent on the same day.; The Tribunal identified the following legal issues:; What was the nature of the contested decisions? Was the Applicant subjected...

The Administration, contrary to its own policies, took into account the Applicant¡¯s functional title only without considering his actual functions vis-¨¤-vis the other P-4 posts in the JAOC. By neglecting to look beyond the Applicant¡¯s functional title, the Administration unlawfully determined that the Applicant would be subject to a dry-cut. Significantly, the Applicant held a continuing appointment. Thus, applying the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL Guidelines to the present case, the Applicant should have been automatically retained since there were, at the time of this application, other P-4 staff members in his...

The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: ¡°Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision¡±. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...