Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Appealable decisions: According to article 2.1(a) of the Statute, a staff member may not contest before the Tribunal a decision which does not affect his or her rights under the staff member¡¯s contract of employment or terms of appointment.Decisions on publication of United Nations documents: Pursuant to former staff rule 112.7 and staff rule 1.9, all rights on documents prepared by a staff member as part of his or her functions following his or her supervisors¡¯ instructions and under their supervision belong to the Organization only. Accordingly, a decision on the publication of such document...

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Moreover, it had not caused her any prejudice. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.

Management evaluation: Pursuant to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Improper motives: The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence that the contested decision was tainted by improper motives.

Legal representation: An applicant may be represented by counsel before the Tribunal provided the requirements of art. 8.2(c) and art. 12 of the Rules of Procedure are met; in particular, the applicant must formally authorize counsel to represent him/her and adequate information must be provided to the Tribunal on the good standing of counsel. Preparatory decisions: According to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal, preparatory decisions are not subject to appeal. They may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.