Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡­ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant¡¯s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant¡¯s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a ¡°dry cut¡±...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...