±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...

Functus Officio: A final decision cannot be reopened, and once the duties and functions of an office are fully discharged, there is no legal competence for reconsideration of the decision by that office. The Dispute Tribunal ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Applicant¡¯s case once the initial judgment was rendered and without the case being remanded by the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal cannot examine the application any further.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the Secretary-General. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the application irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the application irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

The Tribunal found that the cancellation of the selection exercise in question on the ground that there was a breach of confidentiality in the recruitment process was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the decision was tainted by gender discrimination as such claim was not supported by evidence. Regarding the second selection process, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded a full and fair consideration as he was recommended as a suitable candidate, was ranked second in preference, and was not selected as the first recommended...