±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

Receivability: Only the appeal of the compensation amount was receivable¡ªthe Respondent had already conceded to the selection processes being flawed, the Applicant¡¯s return to her liened post was not an administrative decision in itself, and the Applicant had defined a fourth decision too vaguely to give it any meaning. Compliance with orders: Lacking a response from Counsel for the Applicant to a written order, the Tribunal determined that, due to his failure to comply with the order, by default the Tribunal would deem that the Applicant had agreed with the Respondent¡¯s contentions regarding...

Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the recruitment of ±¬ÁÏÍøLB GS local staff, because ±¬ÁÏÍøLB is not an ¡°established mission¡± and, therefore, does not fall within their remit; additionally, the Guidelines were never duly issued at ULNB. In fact, given that ±¬ÁÏÍøLB is not a peacekeeping operation or a special political mission, GS staff recruitments are covered by ST/AI/2010/3 and do not fall, as argued by the Respondent, in a lacuna of law,. The Tribunal further found that the time-in-grade requirements were abolished long ago and are contrary to norms of superior legal...