±¬ÁÏÍø

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office ¡°subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office¡±. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member¡¯s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

The Tribunal found that most of the Applicant¡¯s claims were time barred and that those which were not time barred were without merit. It was found that ±¬ÁÏÍøON had paid the Applicant¡¯s SPA for the periods when he was entitled to it and that he no longer had any legitimate claims for SPA against ±¬ÁÏÍøON. Employment Contract: A contract of employment is personal between the employee in each case and the employer. The terms of one¡¯s employment as stipulated in the letter of appointment or contract of employment is binding in personam between staff member and the organization and one cannot seek to...

Jurisdiction over decisions of the Ethics Office: The work of the Ethics Office is delicate in nature and its functions have a direct impact on staff member¡¯s rights. Therefore, in view of the case law of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the decision of the Ethics Office is an administrative decision and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review such a decision. Duration for conducting a preliminary assessment by the Ethics Office: The nature of the work of the Ethics Office requires timely reaction for effective protection of any ¡®whistle-blowing¡¯ activity. Although the duration of 45 days mentioned in section 5.3 of ST...

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS to WHO and back to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, and her separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The Applicant was not qualified to address ±¬ÁÏÍøDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation¡¯s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...