Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that OHRM¡¯s decision not to consider (endorse) her for a temporary P-3 post in DM (Umoja) and to deny her conversion from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level was valid and lawful. The decision not to consider the applicant eligible for a temporary P-3 post was correct since she only fulfilled one of the mandatory and cumulative conditions ¨C five years of professional experience ¨C in November 2011. The Organization properly determined that the Applicant could not be converted from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level because there was no contractual relationship between the Applicant and...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s explanations for how the missing card came to be in his possession were so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. He was shown to have had the opportunity to take illegal possession of the card and stood to make a pecuniary benefit from so taking it. There were several material inconsistencies in the Applicant¡¯s case and he was found not to be credible, contradicting himself in the course of the investigation and in his testimony before the Tribunal. The facts upon which the sanction was based were established and amounted to serious misconduct on the part of...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant¡¯s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes ¡°that official acts...

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 Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.

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.

Duty to report receipt of overpayments - The Applicant failed in his duty to make the Organization aware of overpayments made to him, as provided for in section 2.4 of ST/AI/2009/1. The wordings of ST/AI/2009/1 create a duty for staff members not only to report the receipt of overpayments but also to take steps to ensure their recovery. In other words, it necessarily prohibits the unauthorised prevention of said recovery. Proportionality of disciplinary sanctions - Taking into account all the mitigating factors, the sanction of termination imposed by the Respondent was not proportionate to the...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

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...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. The application was dismissed.

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.