The Applicant was not qualified to address Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.
The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.
The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Applicant argued that the decision was made in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was illegal since documentary evidence showed that the Administration applied the notion of ¡°public administration¡± randomly and that based on the Applicant¡¯s educational credentials, he ought to have been invited to participate in the examination in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not submit conclusive evidence that the decision was...
The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT examined its competence over the matter and found that it does not have jurisdiction over claims concerning individual contractors/consultants/national experts. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application by summary judgment without consideration of its merits.
The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to submit the essay required by the vacancy announcement. The Applicant argued that the decision was taken in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The Tribunal found that the decision not to convoke the Applicant to the examination was justified since he failed to submit the one-page essay in French, which was clearly an eliminatory requirement indicated in the vacancy announcement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant did not submit evidence in support of his claim that the decision was taken in...
Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was not supported by the facts and that the decision was indeed based on extraneous factors. The decision of the ITC Senior Management Committee to merge several existing programs was never really implemented. A generic P-4 post was advertised in early 2012 under the new program, and funded through budget lines already available when the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment was taken. The available evidence shows that the real motive of the decision was the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, in its earlier Judgment McCloskey Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/199 that only the decision pertaining to the Statement of Tax Settlement for the year 2010 was receivable. Following the Tribunal¡¯s Judgments in McCloskey Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/199 and Johnson Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240, the Respondent no longer contests the illegality of the decision to use the Applicant¡¯s wife¡¯s foreign income tax credit. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor...
