Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Case 1. Mere knowledge of or acquaintance with one or more candidates by an interview panel member does not disqualify her or him from being on the panel. It would be otherwise if there were a personal relationship (such as family or friendship) with or personal antipathy for a candidate. The practical apprehension that objective and independent assessment will be adversely affected, quite apart from any issue of fairness, is improper. Where a panel member has another interest that could significantly affect his or her assessment, this should also require exclusion from the panel. In this case...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the restructuring and the creation of the new post were undertaken in good faith and the decisions to abolish the applicant¡¯s post and to end his contract were proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the applicant was told about the new post and invited to apply. As to the failure to complete the work plan and performance evaluation reports, this was irrelevant because it was not the reason for the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s contract, and, in any case, was due to the applicant himself. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate ¡°rebuttal¡± procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

The Head of Office acted within his authority in effectively overriding the recommendation of the APC, as provided for by Annex 4G, para. 28(a)(iii). The relationship between the SAP and the APC is sequential, not hierarchical; the judgment of one is not superior to the judgment of the other. The Head of Office is not bound to accept the recommendation of one over the other. The Head of Office is bound to exercise his independent judgment after giving careful consideration to the recommendations made to him and explaining why he preferred one candidate to another. The Head of Office did not...

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

Outcome: For distress: USD5,000. For loss of chance: (a) 10 percent of the difference between the salary the applicant actually carries and that she would have received in the D-2 position on a continuous basis, (b) 10 percent of any additional allowances and benefits she would have received at the D-2 level including adjustment of her pension contributions and consequent retirement benefits.

The applicant was ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for want of prosecution by a prescribed time, and failed to do so. There being a failure of prosecution, the matter must be dismissed, as the applicant shows not interest in maintaining proceedings.Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety for want of prosecution.

Outcome: The application was dismissed.

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.

Outcome: The applicant is not entitled to have the note removed simply because no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in respect of the investigation report. However, the note in its present form is inaccurate and must be removed. Its replacement, if any, must be accurate and first shown to the applicant, who must be given a copy of the investigation report to enable him to place such comment on the file as he wishes, providing it is reasonably connected to the investigation.