Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.

The information in the documents on record pointed to purely work-related disagreements between the Applicant and her supervisor. The Tribunal rejected the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Deputy Executive Director, Management (DED/M) did not take into consideration the facts in their entirety and misunderstood her statements when conducting the management evaluation. The Tribunal agreed with the finding that there was no evidence of abuse of authority or deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the Applicant¡¯s supervisor. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not raise any impropriety...

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

The Applicant argued that the decision to abolish his post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper motives, but the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The Applicant applied for three posts at his level and the record showed that staff members holding continuing appointments from a closed peacekeeping mission were appointed to two posts. Since staff members holding continuing appointment have priority over staff members holding fixed-term appointment, the Administration¡¯s decision regarding these two posts was found to be lawful...

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...