Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant, as a 15-day candidate, had been given priority consideration, in compliance with section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3. It concluded that the Applicant had been considered first than 30-day candidates and found unsuitable for the post before any meaningful consideration of 30-day candidates took place. Priority consideration as per section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3: This provision, as consistently interpreted by the Dispute and the Appeals Tribunals, requires that 15-day and 30-day candidates be considered separately; 15-day candidates must be considered first and, if...

The Tribunal found that the application, in so far as it impugned a decision that had been rescinded, had to be rejected as irreceivable. Concerning the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation for moral injury allegedly arising from the contested decision, the Tribunal considered that the causal effect between the Applicant¡¯s troubles and the contested decision had not been demonstrated by the medical certificates provided and thus rejected the claim, without ruling on its receivability. The Tribunal further rejected the Respondent¡¯s request for award of costs against the Applicant because it did...

The Tribunal finds that none of the applicable provisions prevented the renewal of fixed-term appointments for a period of less than a year. It further finds that the alignment policy was properly issued and rejects the Applicant¡¯s allegations of improper motives and discrimination. Terminology: renewal/extension: The wording of staff rule 4.12 and 4.13 shows an undifferentiated use of the terms ¡°renewal¡± and ¡°extension¡±. Delegation of authority: A delegation of power should not be guessed at or presumed. Organizational measure: A policy which consists, for a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretariat office away from...

The Tribunal finds that the restructuring constituted a valid exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretionary authority, that the Applicant¡¯s post was not abolished as he was in fact reassigned against the same budgeted post, and that his reassignment was lawful. Definition of a ¡°post¡±: A ¡°post¡± may be defined as the financial authorization given for a job to be performed, irrespective of the fact that it may be funded through budgetary or extra budgetary sources. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad discretion in the organization of...

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment due to his poor performance...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the Applicant is not a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member and therefore does not have access to the Tribunal. Status of STL staff members: While article 12 of the STL Statute explicitly provides that the ¡°Registrar shall be a staff member of the United Nations¡±, there is no such reference for other high-ranking officials such as the Judges or the Prosecutor, nor for any other ¡°Lebanese and international staff¡± of the STL. From the wording of both the Statute and the Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nted that the Applicants¡¯ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The Administration did not have a legal obligation towards the Applicant to take action at any stage in relation to the fraud. No legally relevant relationship between OCHA and the Applicant existed; the fact that the Applicant¡¯s aunt submitted her applications to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member did not create such a relationship. No Organization is bound to respond to uninvited applications for jobs that the Organization had not previously announced. Neither OCHA nor any other Organization can be made liable for criminal abuse of its name and reputation.The Applicant, who resigned from her post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment of limited duration carried no expectancy of renewal and that there were no countervailing circumstances which could have created such expectancy. It also found that the reason for non-renewal, namely the negative impact that allegations then made against the Applicant in the local media could have on the Organization, was supported by the facts and that the non-renewal decision therefore constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion. Scope of discretion of the Secretary-General in non-renewal cases: It is within the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal found that the application was irreceivable as time-barred; it was also without merit because the alleged conflict of interest was not deemed to exist. Independent status: Bodies endowed with an independent status are integrated in the structure of the Organization and, whilst they may not receive instructions from their chain of command in performing the tasks entrusted to them, they are not entirely detached from the Secretary-General¡¯s authority. Administrative decisions: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of acts other than administrative decisions. Redress...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs¡¯ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

Noting that both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had repeatedly emphasized the need to observe time limits, the Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, without ruling on the admissibility ratione personae of it.