Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, since it was directed against decisions with regulatory power. The issuance of secondary salary scales to staff recruited on or after 1 March 2012 is not of individual application and does not produce direct legal consequences; it constitutes an administrative act with regulatory power, but not an administrative decision under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The freeze of existing salary scales in effect since 1 August 2010 applies to a group of staff members defined exclusively by their status and...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

The Tribunal noted that the HM has broad discretionary power to exercise a preliminary evaluation of the released applicants in order to establish the shortlist of the most qualified candidates to be invited for further assessment, and that the Tribunal will not easily interfere with the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in these matters and substitute its judgment for that of the competent decision maker. It further noted that the work experience requirement as listed in the vacancy announcement (VA) was already described in broad terms, thus opening the door to large discretion as to what...

The Tribunal noted that the content of the notes taken by the three panel members echoed similar answers given by the Applicant, which is a clear indication that they reflect the interview as it indeed happened and the answers provided by the Applicant. The Tribunal was also provided with the list of questions asked by the Panel during all interviews, and noted that the assertions made by the Applicant that she was not asked exactly those questions as they stood were unfounded and not corroborated by any evidence. It recalled that it was well within the discretionary power of the Assessment...

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.

This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for ¡°further proceedings¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the decision to pay the multiplier of 65.5 from 1 August 2012 through 31 January 2013 to all professional staff member with duty station New York, constitutes a decision with regulatory power and not an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal further found that decision to pay the Applicants the amount calculated on the basis of the 65.5 for the month of January 2013 as reflected in their respective statement of earning, constitutes an administrative decision hence the application...

In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant¡¯s claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...

Legitimate expectation ¨C The Country Office¡¯s Core Management Group meeting of 29 February 2012 decided that all international staff, including the Applicant, would be extended for one year and the Applicant knew of the decision. This Tribunal finds that the decision taken at a regular and proper Country Office Core Management Group meeting to extend the contract of a staff member, which decision is embodied in open recorded minutes and accessible to staff members, carries far greater weight than any ¡®express promise¡¯ that can be made to the said staff member about extending his contract. The...