Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb ¡°shall¡± is used (b) that for ¡°review and discussion¡±, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before¡ªand not after¡ªany selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the ¡°recommended¡± male candidate is ¡°clearly superior¡± to any...

After the Applicant¡¯s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration¡¯s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member¡¯s privileges...

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...

The contested decision fell within the Administration¡¯s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint in light of the alleged harasser¡¯s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the...

While the schedule set for the written assessment was probably inconvenient for the Applicant. However, he did not even attempt to provide a reason, neither when he was notified of the assessment¡¯s schedule nor in his application, why it was not possible for him to take the test. He simply asked for the test to be rescheduled to coincide with the working hours at his location. The reason provided by the Administration for not being able to accommodate different schedules, namely the avoidance of leaks, is fair and reasonable.Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s decision not to participate in the...

The decision to change the Applicant¡¯s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting officers falls under...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed ¡°after¡± she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR¡¯s comments in relation to the Applicant¡¯s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three ¡°off the record¡± emails with the journalist and it was the...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant¡¯s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...