±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant¡¯s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

The former Staff Regulations provided that: ¡°For the purpose of these Regulations, the expressions ¡®United Nations Secretariat¡¯, ¡®staff member¡¯ or ¡®staff¡¯ shall refer to all staff members of the Secretariat [¡­].¡± Former staff rule 104.10 (a) prohibited the recruitment of the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member, except where another person equally well qualified could not be recruited. It results from the foregoing that candidates who have a family relationship with a staff member working for an entity part of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretariat are precluded from recruitment to a...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints against ECA¡¯s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 ¨C Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.

[Case ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2009/33] The APPC omission to inform the applicant that his supervisor had sent a letter to it concerning his employment and to share its content with him does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. It thus falls out of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s contract was already taken at that point. Hence, the letter to the APPC was merely internal communication; at the highest, it could be regarded as one step in a complexe procedure. [Case ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2009/40] The...

There was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, to reach a finding of serious misconduct. The sanction of summary dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The applications are dismissed.

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...