Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

The fact that the Applicant had only a few months left to reach full retirement age and that if she had been allowed to reach mandatory retirement age her terminal benefits would have been better than what she received on termination, or the fact that the Field Staff Union intervened to have her granted a brief extension, or that she was afforded less days¡¯ official notice before termination do not constitute valid grounds for alleging that the abolition of her post was irregular. These were not relevant matters that the Administration was obliged to consider. The Respondent conceded that one...

Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.

On the first issue of placing of the note on the Applicant¡¯s personnel file, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not dispute that the Respondent complied with ST/AI/292 which governs placement of adverse materials on personnel files. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent acted within the law. The Applicant also provided his comments on the note. On that basis, the application on the first issue was found not receivable as it did not disclose any administrative decision that had any direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of his employment. On the second issue...

The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant¡¯s former employment relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

As MSD is a technical body, the Applicant was required under staff rule 11.2(b) to submit his application against the ABCC¡¯s decision directly to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without first having recourse to MEU for review.; On the basis of the Applicant¡¯s own admission that no decision has been made in relation to his claim for the injuries to his legs and considering the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence, the claim against the SecretaryGeneral under this head must be dismissed on the ground that it is premature.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.