Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The complaint concerning the receivability of the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment was dismissed on two grounds. It was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation and secondly, because the Applicant was not in active service throughout the period of consideration as required by the provisions of section 2.6 of ST/AI/2012/3. The Tribunal found that the civilian staffing review conducted by the RSCE, resulting in the reduction of several posts, was conducted for a bona fide reason and its proposals were endorsed by the General Assembly...

Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under ¡°g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months¡± is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (¡°shall¡±) to be...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

Staff rule 4.7(a) and (b) has a limited and express area of application as established in staff rule 4.7(c) and that, per a contrario, a person who is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member and who applied to a post, was considered and was selected through a competitive selection process as being the best candidate, can be assigned to any post, including in the same department/unit which is not superior or subordinate in the line of authority to the staff member to whom s/he is related. Staff rule 4.7(c), by establishing that the posts which are superior or...

The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...