±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated several hurdles to the receivability of the present application, including with respect to receivability ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that on the papers filed some of these issues would ordinarily warrant further examination had the application not been manifestly inadmissible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was manifestly inadmissible because the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a request for management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing an application with...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

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 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.

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

Appealable administrative decision: Both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on the Tribunal¡¯s website are matters of internal organization which do not constitute acts adversely affecting staff members¡¯ rights.

Sub judice: The sub judice rule restricts the publication of prejudicial information relating to proceedings that are current before a court or pending judicial consideration and determination. Publication of prejudicial information about a person will not attract liability for contempt if proceedings involving that person are not yet pending (although a publication in this situation may attract liability on other legal grounds, for example, a defamation action in the domestic courts). Publication of material on matters that are sub judice may result in contempt of court, punishable in many...

The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (¡°CMP¡±), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants¡¯ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.