Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal¡¯s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (¡°RSG¡±) for the Investments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

Binding force of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the ¡°Judgment¡± section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...

Recalling the above-mentioned Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling and the requirements set therein for the reconsideration ordered by it, the Tribunal found that the impugned decisions were unlawful on several accounts, but primarily in that (a) the Applicants were not considered individually in light of their proficiencies, qualifications, competencies, conduct and transferrable skills, and (b) the decisions were based on the limited mandate of ICTY alone, to the exclusion of all other relevant factors. Accordingly, the Tribunal rescinded the impugned decisions, ordered the matter to be remanded once...

Binding force of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the ¡°Judgment¡± section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...