Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not able to detect any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, art. 7.5 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead¡¤of...

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, art. 7.5 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration...

Staff rule 111.2 (a) requires that a staff member who wishes to challenge an administrative decision to request the Secretary-General, within two months of notification of the said decision, for the decision to be reconsidered. This period starts from the notification of the first refusal decision. The sending by the administration of decisions confirming a first refusal does not reopen the deadlines. However, it is up to the judge to ascertain before rejecting a time-barred request that the staff member has not been misled by the administration on the terms of his appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.