±¬ÁÏÍø

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

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...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application.

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant¡¯s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by ±¬ÁÏÍøON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by ±¬ÁÏÍøON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.