Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate¡¯s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s competence to substitute the Administration¡¯s decision to select between suitable candidates.
[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...
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.
[Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...
Section 8.9 of ST/AI/1999/3 applies only to holders of fixed-term appointments. It is therefore not relevant to the applicant¡¯s case, as he held an indefinite appointment. Regarding the payments due, a clear distinction must be made between the termination indemnities, which are automatically due to the concerned staff member in the event of termination of his/her contract, as provided by the Staff Regulations and Rules, and the compensation package, which, in addition to that which is legally due, includes a certain amount that the administration chooses to give ex gratia; as such, it is...
Since the applicant was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV when the contested decision was taken, the decision to bar him from access to the VIC did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The decision could be contested neither before the JAB nor before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.
Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...
According to the available record, the applicant never received a letter of appointment and no such letter was ever signed by an authorized official. He did not, therefore, become a staff member of the United Nations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. It follows that the applicant has no access to the system of administration of justice in its present state. It is noted that the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to investigate the option of granting access to non-staff personnel. Outcome: the application was rejected.
Since he remained a WFP staff member and pursuant to the above-mentioned Inter-Organization Agreement, the applicant never had a contractual relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID. Only WFP was in a position to render decisions that could affect his terms of appointment. Two decisions were at stake. With respect to the first (WFP decision not to treat him as a D-1), his case could not be heard before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because WFP has recognised ILOAT as judicial review body. Concerning the second (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID decision not to appoint him as Deputy Director), the applicant is not a ¡°staff member¡± within the meaning of art. 3...
