±¬ÁÏÍø

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...

Receivability ratione temporis: The 60-day period specified in staff rule 11.2 to request management evaluation starts to run from the date of notification of a final decision. Applicable law: While annual leave entitlements are accrued on a monthly basis, the right to be compensated for accrued annual leave arises at the time when the staff member is separated from service. Thus, in assessing the lawfulness of a decision denying payment of annual leave, the Tribunal must take into consideration the provisions in effect at the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service.

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant¡¯s candidature as all candidates¡¯ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates¡¯ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the...

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...

Receivability; The application is receivable ratione personae. After accepting the offer of employment, the Applicant effectively started to perform the functions of Senior Economic Affairs; Officer, ECE, on 1 May 2017. The Organization thus treated him like a staff member, although he was not eligible to apply and be selected for the position and no letter of appointment was signed. As a result, the Applicant is legitimately entitled to rights similar to those afforded to staff members, for the purpose of being granted access to the internal justice system of the United Nations.; Merits; The...