Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The evidence showed that the Applicant¡¯s post was abolished and his fixed-term appointment was not extended for this reason. Therefore, the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was lawful. The Applicant has adduced insufficient evidence that he was promised a renewal. The Applicant should have been aware that his fixed-term appointment expired automatically at the end of its term. The Administration properly notified the Applicant of the non-renewal of his appointment. While the notification of the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment did not state...

The Tribunal noted the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant gave unsolicited responses in line with the Panel¡¯s questioning format which he seems to have been privy to. The Panel had no opportunity to ask him questions in areas such as gender since he gave successive examples in different aspects of the interview areas in a short time span. This evidence supported the finding that the Applicant¡¯s conduct did not facilitate his meaningful engagement with the Panel beyond what took place. He could not argue therefore that the Panel did not probe to elicit more appropriate examples from him...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant¡¯s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

The Administration informed the Applicant that ¡°it will issue an administrative reprimand¡±. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct ¡°with the interests of the United Nations only in view¡± and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF before expressing her personal views, that...

The Applicant does not question whether this presentation of the applicable law is comprehensible, but rather intends to reargue his case that the contested selection processes were unlawful. As the Tribunal further finds that paras. 14 to 17, as well as the remaining parts of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/075, are straightforward and easy to understand.

Any changes to the Applicant¡¯s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office¡¯s work. The Applicant¡¯s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

Management evaluation request The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policies and Procedures Manual provides that they shall be submitted using a form annexed to said Manual and sent to a precise email address. While the Tribunal recognizes that the Applicant has not followed the established formalities to request management evaluation, i.e., use of a form and a specified email address, it cannot be overlooked that he exercised due diligence to ensure that his documented request reached the Executive Director, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA and that, moreover, his request was acknowledged. The latter, in turn, brings the Tribunal to conclude that...

The Applicant¡¯s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant¡¯s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The Respondent produced adequate contemporaneous written documentation to minimally show that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration pursuant to Lemonnier and Verma. The Applicant failed to rebut this with clear and convincing evidence, noting that the contested non-selection decision was solely based on him failing this written test and that no evidence on record points to any ulterior motives.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review preparatory steps of an administrative decision and rejected the application as not receivable.

The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.

The irregularities detected in the selection process were of such gravity¡ªnot keeping any written record of the contested administrative decision, an undefined decisionmaker, and flawed reasons and justifications¡ªthat they cannot be regarded as minor procedural or substantive errors that did not impact the outcome of the non-selection decision. Accordingly, the Respondent was not been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature for the post was fully and fairly considered. Four other candidates had been shortlisted for the written test for the relevant post. Had the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

Upon review of the record, the Tribunal finds that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing which would give rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal of his temporary appointment. The erroneous approval by the OIC of Mission Support cannot be understood to create a legitimate expectation of the renewal. There was maladministration in terms of delay in communicating the error to the Applicant and the Respondent has provided compensation to the Applicant in that respect. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the Administration¡¯s finding that there were no...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable.