Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

The judge must raise on his/her own motion the issue of receivability of an application and in particular verify whether the requirements of former staff rule 111.2 (a) have been complied with since the request for review of an administrative decision is a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal. The absence of the request for review leads to the irreceivability of the application (see judgments Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/158, Osman; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/070, Planas; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/054, Nwuke; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/035, Caldarone). The Tribunal¡¯s competence is limited, pursuant to art. 2.1 (a) of the...

The statement of the Executive Director is not an administrative decision that can be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. It is not an administrative decision within the meaning of the ruling in Andronov by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Indeed, the applicant did not contest the non-renewal of his appointment but a statement by the Executive Director. This statement is a simple opinion, not an administrative decision that could have affected the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. By the time the statement was published, the applicant was already aware of the non-renewal of his...

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the recent jurisprudence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

[Case Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/33] The APPC omission to inform the applicant that his supervisor had sent a letter to it concerning his employment and to share its content with him does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. It thus falls out of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s contract was already taken at that point. Hence, the letter to the APPC was merely internal communication; at the highest, it could be regarded as one step in a complexe procedure. [Case Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/40] The...

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

Even though the contested decision resulted in a reduction of the Applicant¡¯s responsibilities, by removing from her all authority over this section which she previously managed, the challenged decision is in itself a simple decision of organization of a service, which is not open to appeal before the Tribunal. Indeed, it results from the Staff Rules and from the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that a staff member may only contest before the Tribunal an administrative decision which affects his or her rights as provided for in his or her letter of appointment and administrative issuances applicable to...