Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As regards her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that the ratings resulting from the rebuttal processes had replaced the initial ratings and that hence the e-Pas reports cannot be annulled. Concerning the inclusion in the OSF of documents arising from the rebuttal processes relating to her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that only the documents specified in ST/AI/2002/3 and ST/AI/2010/5 are to be included in her OSF. It also found that the irregularities in relation to her e-Pas reports were of such gravity as to render them meaningless and that they are thus not be included in her OSF. The...

As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member¡¯s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.

The Tribunal found that the decision to consider the Applicant as ineligible was legal and did not violate any of his rights.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not suffered any material or moral prejudice. With regard to OSLA¡¯s refusal to provide her with legal assistance, the Tribunal found that the decision is not illegal since there was a conflict of interest . The Applicant is a staff member of OSLA and her application before the Tribunal concerns a written reprimand issued by her immediate supervisor, the Chief of OSLA.

He alleged that the non-renewal of his appointment was based on discriminatory grounds, i.e. because of his Kurdish ethnicity, and not for reasons of force majeure, namely due to the occurred earthquake, leading to the subsequent closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office in Van/Turkey. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew his appointment was lawful, as the Applicant failed to adduce evidence of any breach of his rights.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Judicial review in disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, where the facts are established and undisputed, the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts in question constitute misconduct and whether the sanction imposed is proportionate to the misconduct. In this regard, the Tribunal may not intervene in the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority, except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.

Confirmative decisions: These decisions do not re-open time limits for formal contestation.

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members¡¯ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

Receivability ratione temporis: The 60-day period specified in staff rule 11.2 to request management evaluation starts to run from the date of notification of a final decision. Applicable law: While annual leave entitlements are accrued on a monthly basis, the right to be compensated for accrued annual leave arises at the time when the staff member is separated from service. Thus, in assessing the lawfulness of a decision denying payment of annual leave, the Tribunal must take into consideration the provisions in effect at the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that at least 78 candidates had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process and no procedural irregularity with an impact on her status as well as a probability for promotion...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion.The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that there were candidates who had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process. The Tribunal further noted that although mistakes occurred, which were then corrected and...

Receivability ratione materiae of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: In order for the Tribunal to act upon an application for suspension of action submitted pursuant to article 2.2 of its Statute, an ¡°administrative decision¡± must be at issue. According to the Tribunal¡¯s case law, a challengeable administrative decision is a decision taken by the Administration which carries direct legal consequences in respect of the applicant¡¯s rights under the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment.

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

Administration¡¯s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: Staff rule 11.2 not only permits but actually requires the Administration to revoke an administrative decision that it considers unlawful. However, the power to revoke decisions conferring rights should necessarily be exercised within the relevant time frame to respond to a request for management evaluation. Irreparable damage: Where the injury alleged is only hypothetical, it may not be regarded as ¡°irreparable¡± within the meaning of article 2.2 of the Statute in the context of an application for...