±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Applicant submitted that seeing that the Secretary-General of the United Nations does not have any authority over staff rules at the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, the Pension Fund is not precluded from employing a candidate that was rejected by OHRM. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and OHRM correctly applied the legal provisions by considering that OHRM was responsible for administering the selection process for a post located in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and that the Applicant was not eligible for the post due to the fact that he held a post at a G-4 grade whereas the post to which he had applied was at the G-7 grade, three...

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

Following successful settlement discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing all of her allegations and claims. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, the dispute having been settled by way of a settlement agreement, the Applicant withdrew her case fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The case was closed without liberty to reinstate or appeal.

With respect to the first contested selection process, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Respondent¡¯s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was credible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application.

Of the 128 candidates who applied for the post, three were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application and requesting that the case file be placed under seal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, given the already confidential status of the Tribunal¡¯s case files, the Applicant¡¯s request to place the case record under seal need not be granted. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered that, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant¡¯s name be redacted from the Judgment.