Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that Ms. Wenz¡¯ application was irreceivable ratione materiae and that therefore, it did not have to address the question of whether the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s participation in mediation efforts did not automatically extend the time limit for filing a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Secretary-General was not estopped from raising the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

The staff member filed an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got¡¯s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

Regarding Contested Decision #1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory with the exception of disciplinary cases. It is clear from the applicant¡¯s submissions that he was well aware that the decision to stop the payment of his salary and the decision not to renew his appointment are two distinct administrative decisions. The applicant failed to request an administrative review or management evaluation of the decision not to pay his salary. Outcome: The application is not receivable.