Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

- The contested decision is receivable because it affected the Applicant¡¯s conditions of employment, and was the object of a timely management evaluation request. - There is no evidence on record that OAI¡¯s investigation of the complaints against the Applicant was mishandled. In the circumstences surrounding the investigation, there were no unreasonable decisions made which were contrary to OAI¡¯s Investigation Guidelines. The Applicant had his opportunity to refute all the allegations made, to question the circumstances and motivation behind the allegations, which he did. OAI¡¯s decision that...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican¡¯s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°[i]n order for a staff member¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. When she...

The contested memorandum is not an administrative decision open to challenge as per the definition adopted by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision affecting her terms of employment and the contested memorandum concerns a general delegation of authority. Consequently, the application is rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

Whether candidates for a Job Opening possess all required criteria is subjected to an assessment entrusted to each hiring manager based on an evaluation of each candidature pursuant to secs. 7.4 and 7.6 of ST/AI/2010/3. Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s allegation, the hiring manager did not use new criteria but provided elements, that were taken into consideration in the assessment process, to come up with a reasoned and objectively justifiable decision aimed to select among a high number of applicants those to be shortlisted. Knowledge of several internal candidates in a D-1 recruitment process...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established With respect to Count One, the Tribunal finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant did not disclose his spouse¡¯s and his father in law¡¯s involvement with two Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF implementing partners, of which the Applicant was the responsible Programme Manager on behalf of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. In his application, the Applicant does not dispute this fact either. Turning to Count Two, the Tribunal is convinced that the Applicant received a spouse dependency allowance to which he was not entitled. Moreover, the...

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU¡¯s responses to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments against the MEU¡¯s responses to his request for management...

Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant¡¯s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.