Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Applicant¡¯s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal¡¯s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant¡¯s request for an internal review of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS: The Tribunal¡¯s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant¡¯s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, such article allows the...

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any detrimental effects on him caused by the combination of the selection processes established or that he was; misled by the combined process.;. The Applicant did not meet one of the job requirements, therefore, he had no expectation of being selected against the posts.; In the absence of any prospect of being selected for the Posts, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not established that he suffered any harm from being considered along with other candidates.; Nothing on the record suggests that any of the questions that the...

The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his claim that the Respondent was biased towards him and nothing in the case record suggests otherwise. His contention therefore fails.

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant¡¯s submission that the expert panel did not; have the authority to compile a list of recommended candidates to the Director of the department based on its assessment of all the candidates participating in the selection process.; There is no requirement in any of the regulations, rules or policies of the; Organization for all expert panel members to undergo training in competency-based interviewing.; The Tribunal concludes that the fact that one out of three members of the expert; panel who interviewed that Applicant had not received competency-based training...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a ¡°hold had been put on¡± the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant¡¯s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a ¡°verbal apology¡± (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...