Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate¡¯s lateral moves. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant chose not to submit her candidacy for this P-5 vacancy. Accordingly, the outcome of the selection process had no direct legal effect on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant lacked standing to contest the selection process. The application was therefore dismissed.

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.