±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although ±¬ÁÏÍøIFEM/±¬ÁÏÍøDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant¡¯s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, ±¬ÁÏÍøIFEM¡¯s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}

Administrative decision: The Tribunal noted that at the time the application was filed, there was a contestable administrative decision. However, subsequent to the filing, the Respondent overturned its initial finding of ineligibility and by so doing it expunged the administrative decision upon which the application was predicated. Consequently, there was no longer a contestable administrative decision to be considered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the ±¬ÁÏÍø City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant¡¯s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes ¡°that official acts...

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Application was not res judicata. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2013/014). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the decision to pay the multiplier of 65.5 from 1 August 2012 through 31 January 2013 to all professional staff member with duty station New York, constitutes a decision with regulatory power and not an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal further found that decision to pay the Applicants the amount calculated on the basis of the 65.5 for the month of January 2013 as reflected in their respective statement of earning, constitutes an administrative decision hence the application...