Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the decision regarding the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement has a crucial impact on the case because had his request to be reinstated be considered positively, his service with the Organization would have been considered continuous. The Tribunal ordered the Administration to decide on the request for reinstatement after a policy including the conditions for reinstatement is promulgated and to review, afterward, the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. The Tribunal remanded the contested decision to the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that given that the Applicant failed to comply with the deadline for the filing of his request for management evaluation, his application was time-barred and his application was not receivable before the Tribunal.

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants¡¯ post at the S-3 level, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ claims regarding the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case¡ªincluding oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents¡ªthe Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants¡¯ posts at the S-3 level was...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...