Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Respondent produced adequate contemporaneous written documentation to minimally show that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration pursuant to Lemonnier and Verma. The Applicant failed to rebut this with clear and convincing evidence, noting that the contested non-selection decision was solely based on him failing this written test and that no evidence on record points to any ulterior motives.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review preparatory steps of an administrative decision and rejected the application as not receivable.

The Applicant argued that the decision to abolish his post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper motives, but the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The Applicant applied for three posts at his level and the record showed that staff members holding continuing appointments from a closed peacekeeping mission were appointed to two posts. Since staff members holding continuing appointment have priority over staff members holding fixed-term appointment, the Administration¡¯s decision regarding these two posts was found to be lawful...

The information in the documents on record pointed to purely work-related disagreements between the Applicant and her supervisor. The Tribunal rejected the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Deputy Executive Director, Management (DED/M) did not take into consideration the facts in their entirety and misunderstood her statements when conducting the management evaluation. The Tribunal agreed with the finding that there was no evidence of abuse of authority or deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the Applicant¡¯s supervisor. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not raise any impropriety...

The Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

Upon review of the record, the Tribunal finds that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing which would give rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal of his temporary appointment. The erroneous approval by the OIC of Mission Support cannot be understood to create a legitimate expectation of the renewal. There was maladministration in terms of delay in communicating the error to the Applicant and the Respondent has provided compensation to the Applicant in that respect. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the Administration¡¯s finding that there were no...