Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-842, the claim is dismissed.

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman¡¯s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

The Tribunal found that the main issues for determination in this matter were 1) whether a temporary job opening limited to ¡°local recruitment only¡± is lawful, and 2) if the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that pursuant to section 1.1 of ST/AI/2010/4 Rev.1 (Administration of temporary appointments) the Organization may limit temporary job openings to local recruitment cannot stand. It also found that there were no legal grounds for the Respondent¡¯s assertion that limiting temporary recruitments...

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

Art. 8.1(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.

Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...