Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal considered that the reclassification of the post encumbered by the Applicant did not follow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Regulations and Rules concerning reclassification. It consequently found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment beyond 31 December 2017, taken only as a result of the said reclassification of the post, was unlawful. On remedies, this Tribunal found that the determination of the compensation in lieu between the minimum and the maximum provided by the Statute must take into account¡ªso graduating the amount accordingly¡ªthe specific circumstances of the case...

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s actions were consistent with a concluded intent not to return to her duty station, no matter the lack of basis. Therefore, the Respondent¡¯s decision to separate her on the ground of abandonment of post was lawful.

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant was not relitigating the same claim that was dismissed by Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2019/122. The Tribunal concluded that Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2019/122 related solely to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against MONUSCO¡¯s decision to abolish his post by way of a ¡°dry cut¡± and not to extend his fixed-term appointment (FTA) and that this judgment made no pronouncements, whether procedural or substantive on the Applicant¡¯s claim for a termination indemnity. In the absence of an explicit decision/evidence corroborating the Applicant¡¯s assertion that...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant¡¯s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office¡¯s recommendation only required that ¡°efforts be made¡±, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section. The Ethics...

The Applicant was not a staff member at the time of the contested decision, and her former employment was with a different entity than that concerned by the administrative decision under review in this case. No nexus existed between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with the Organization and the administrative decision under review, and the Applicant has therefore no standing to challenge this decision. The cancellation of a selection process is not a challengeable administrative decision. In this case, the canceled job opening was eventually re-advertised and the Applicant eventually selected...

In Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2019/012, the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision within 60 days and the application in this respect is therefore not receivable. In Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2018/045, the Applicant only learned the real reasons underlying the decision not to select him for the position at the management evaluation stage. Therefore, he was allowed to introduce arguments concerning these reasons in his application before the Dispute Tribunal even if he had not raised them at the management evaluation stage. The Administration decided to select two female...

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...

Staff members are entitled to due process in relation to their complaints, not to a particular finding against another staff member or to a particular decision by the Organization towards another staff member. The Applicant¡¯s claims have all been comprehensively addressed by the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant failed to establish a basis for which further remedies should be granted. The application is rejected in its entirety.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. It held that the impugned decision was lawful because there was nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondent had acted outside the scope of lawful discretion in designing and conducting the selection process. In addition, the Applicant had not demonstrated that in his evaluation relevant material had not been taken into consideration.

The Respondent requested the Tribunal to redact the names of the victim and her family from ¡°any public filings in this case¡±. The Tribunal considered the request reasonable and decided to refrain from using the victim¡¯s name as well as the name of the members of her family in its judgment to preserve their privacy and to protect them from any negative repercussion. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Since the Applicant had been working for the Organization since...