±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and considered by same. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.

In accordance with former staff rule 104.12(b)(i) and provisional staff rule 4.13(c), the Applicant cannot claim a right to the renewal of her fixed-term appointment. The Applicant claims that the difficult working relationship she had with her supervisor led the latter, with the objective of getting rid of the former, to seek the reclassification of her post at a higher level. However, the Applicant does not prove that the non-extension of her appointment results solely from the desire of her supervisor to remove her from the service, nor that, consequently, the contested decision appears...

The P-11 clearly states that any misrepresentation or material omission made on a P-11 or other document requested by the Organization renders a staff member of the United Nations liable to termination or dismissal. The Applicant deliberately submitted a P-11 misrepresenting his educational background and submitted a certificate which he knew to be forged. Therefore, ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was well-founded.

Since the Applicant only pointed out that the non-implementation of the indicated provision had restricted her options to be selected for posts in some duty stations, she failed to identify any such administrative decision. The Tribunal stressed that a selection process involves a series of steps which lead to an administrative decision. It stated that only if the Applicant contested the outcome of a selection process for a specific post (the administrative decision), would the Tribunal be competent to hear and pass judgement on her application.

All staff have a right and a duty to report to management any facts that come to their notice which may constitute professional misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Inspector General¡¯s decision not to follow up on the allegations made by the applicant, after an investigation, is an internal measure pertaining to the organization and management of the service which is non- appealable by the staff member who made the allegations, since the alleged misconduct in no way violates the applicant¡¯s rights as derived from his status. In the case at hand, the applicant alleged that his supervisor had wrongly claimed...

The Tribunal highlights the necessity of management evaluation, quoting Nwuke and Caldarone. It is not enough to merely initiate the procedure. On the contrary, the result of Management evaluation has to be awaited generally, before an application may be submitted to the Tribunal. It is not within the Applicant's discretion to evade management evaluation which is considered useless. Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The applicant submits that the decision not to promote her is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Staff Rules stipulating that the main factors to be considered with regard to promotions are efficiency, competence and integrity. However, the applicant does not specify in what respects the contested decision violates the said provisions and thus does not enable the judge to rule on these assertions. The principal reason for the refusal to recommend promotion was that the applicant had not been recommended in 2007. While the applicant is contesting that...

The Applicant can only challenge the decisions before the Joint Appeals Board and subsequently before the judge only the decisions for which she requested a management evaluation.
Since, neither in her introductory application nor in subsequent briefs or orally at the hearing, the applicant made explicit reference to the arguments contained in the request for management evaluation. The judge limits himself to examining the arguments expressly raised.
The refusal of the hierarchical superior to propose a staff member for promotion is an administrative decision that can be challenged. In the...