Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

The Tribunal found that the non-extension of the Applicant¡¯s appointment in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI was not a termination but her mission assignment simply came to an end after the maximum two years. The Applicant¡¯s challenge of the administrative decision to restrict her mission assignment to the maximum of two years is not receivable as she failed to request for management evaluation. Receivability - Even if by any stretch of reasoning it was open to the Applicant to challenge the conditions of her mission assignment which she had accepted on 28 January 2013, time began to run for her to challenge that...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

The Tribunal found that the letter of 9 June 2015 constitutes, in essence, merely the implementation of the earlier decision to separate the Applicant from the Organization for reason of post abolition. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was already adjudicated by Judgment Seyfollahzadeh Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/037, affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgment Seyfollahzadeh 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-620. The Tribunal thus found that the matter was res judicata, and rejected the application. Res judicata: If a termination letter constitutes the mere implementation of an earlier decision to terminate the...

In the Applicant¡¯s view, the Hiring Manager¡¯s alleged favoritism of the candidate finally selected was evidenced by the 19-month delay in advertising the post and a change in the standard language of the experience requirements, without which the successful candidate would have been ineligible. However, the evidence showed that said factors did not have a significant impact on the candidate¡¯s eligibility. Moreover, the slight lowering of the experience criterion was not originated by the Hiring Manager and, while he delayed the advertising he did so to ensure his alternative employment in case...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application irreceivable in respect of one position due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. With respect to the remaining three posts, the Tribunal found that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services) was unlawful, and that the other two selection decisions were not. Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services), set the amount of alternative...

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant¡¯s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant¡¯s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant¡¯s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...