±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did...

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant¡¯s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated several hurdles to the receivability of the present application, including with respect to receivability ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that on the papers filed some of these issues would ordinarily warrant further examination had the application not been manifestly inadmissible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was manifestly inadmissible because the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a request for management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing an application with...

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine on its own motion the issue of receivability even if the parties did not raise it.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion.The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that there were candidates who had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process. The Tribunal further noted that although mistakes occurred, which were then corrected and...