Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Applicant argued that the decision was made in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was illegal since documentary evidence showed that the Administration applied the notion of ¡°public administration¡± randomly and that based on the Applicant¡¯s educational credentials, he ought to have been invited to participate in the examination in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not submit conclusive evidence that the decision was...

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and that the selected candidate met the required work experience for the post. Computation of part-time experience: The conversion of part-time work experience to relevant work experience is within the discretion of the administration as long as the method used is not arbitrary or irregular. Written tests: Though there are no established rules and or guidelines for the rating system and the distribution of points for a written test exercise, a hiring manager has discretion in developing a standard to be used to govern the awarding of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT examined its competence over the matter and found that it does not have jurisdiction over claims concerning individual contractors/consultants/national experts. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application by summary judgment without consideration of its merits.

The Applicants argue that the facts were not established and that their actions did not amount to misconduct, since they were acting in self-defense or in defense of someone else. The Tribunal noted that video evidence, i.e. hotel security camera footage, constituted the only reliable evidence to establish the facts in the instant case and concluded that the Applicants, who were on an official mission at the material time, initiated the dispute and the physical altercation and did not act in self-defense when they assaulted a security guard. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts...

The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to submit the essay required by the vacancy announcement. The Applicant argued that the decision was taken in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The Tribunal found that the decision not to convoke the Applicant to the examination was justified since he failed to submit the one-page essay in French, which was clearly an eliminatory requirement indicated in the vacancy announcement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant did not submit evidence in support of his claim that the decision was taken in...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had had a break in service which disrupted the eligibility requirement of five years¡¯ continuous service with the Organization. Eligibility requirements: Whether a staff member is eligible for consideration has to be assessed against clear and objective criteria, which is not open to discretion. Break-in Service: In the context of the United Nations, a break in service consists of a certain period of time between two contracts, governed by the United Nations staff rules, during which a person is not employed by the Organization. Competence of decision...

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that throughout the process, the Applicant remained an IFAD staff member hence his application was not receivable, ratione personae, and the Tribunal was not competent to consider the application.

Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.