±¬ÁÏÍø

With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...

With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...

With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision, since the decision to close the case had no direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Administrative decision: While staff members have a duty to report possible misconduct, a decision by the Organization not to investigate the matter does not have direct legal consequences on the contractual rights of the staff member, unless the complaint made by the staff member was one of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal found, on receivability, that this amounts to an appealable administrative decision, insofar as it had direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, and on the merits, that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Direct legal effects: A decision to fill a given vacancy through a lateral movement has direct legal effects on the rights of potential candidates...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute...

Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selections criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...

Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selection criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...