Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings.The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal

The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG in March 2022 could not have constituted an express promise to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing (see Kellie, para. 44). Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s suggestion, the verbal statement was not sufficient to support a firm commitment or an entitlement to...

In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS.

Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC are two different entities of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ system. While the Applicant was a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, he had no employment relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC.
The Applicant acknowledged that ¡°there...

The compulsory nature of education at any level is not one of the eligibility requirements for the education grant. The determining factor is the binding nature of the start of formal primary education. Paragraph 4.2(d) provides for an exception only if an earlier start of formal primary education is required by law. In other words, it creates an exception to the five-year age-based definition of ¡°primary level¡± set forth in para 4.2(c). The legal minimum level of education for education grant eligibility purposes remains the primary level.
Furthermore, the Hungarian Act on National Education...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.

The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...

While Nepalese law and custom may be relevant based on the Applicant¡¯s reluctance to culturally accept this designation of half-brother as applicable to him, Nepalese law cannot be deemed the applicable law of the United Nations when referring to employment matters within the Organization. The applicable law of the United Nations is seen and accepted as is promulgated in the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. The latter applies to employment matters.

While the Applicant wanted to raise his preferred belief that the law of Nepal should apply because he is Nepalese and so is his...

As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant¡¯s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...