±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...

The Tribunal considered that since the decision of 29 April 2015 was superseded by subsequent renewals, the application was moot, hence irreceivable. Receivability: An application against a non-renewal of appointment becomes moot when the appointment is extended prior to or pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, since the contested decision is deprived of its effects. As a consequence, the application is irreceivable.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration¡¯s inaction.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...