±¬ÁÏÍø

The time limit for appeal runs from the date on which the appellant receives the Secretary General's response to her request for review. If the Administration maintains that it received it before the date indicated by the Applicant, it is up to the Administration to provide proof thereof. The minutes of the sessions held by the Appointments, Promotions, and Assignments Committee are documents allowing the judge to verify the procedure followed by the Commission. To obtain the annulment of a decision refusing promotion, the Applicant must establish either that the list of promotions was taken...

When a time limit for filing an appeal expires on a Sunday, the appeal presented on the following Monday is admissible. Since, neither in his introductory appeal nor by subsequent briefs or orally at the hearing, the applicant made explicit reference to the arguments contained in the request for review which he made to the Secretary-General, the judge confines itself to examining the arguments expressly raised. While it is up to the judge to rule on the regularity of promotion procedures and on factual errors made by the administration, it is not for him to take the place of the High...

The judge makes his decision on the basis of all the documents in the file to the extent that all the parties are aware of them and have been able to discuss them. He must not exclude a document produced by a party unless it is submitted after the expiry of a time limit which he himself has fixed or which is imposed on him by the texts and only if this document is not likely to modify the outcome of the dispute, a hypothesis which requires the judge to grant the parties additional time to ensure compliance with the adversarial proceedings. The regulations in force for establishing the list of...

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...

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration...

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration...

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration...

The High commissioner is not bound to follow the recommendations of the Appointments, Promotion, and Postings Commission, but he cannot grant a promotion without the situation of the eligible official having been examined by the Commission. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration must apply the regulation in force. It is up to the...

Staff rule 111.2 (a) requires that a staff member who wishes to challenge an administrative decision to request the Secretary-General, within two months of notification of the said decision, for the decision to be reconsidered. This period starts from the notification of the first refusal decision. The sending by the administration of decisions confirming a first refusal does not reopen the deadlines. However, it is up to the judge to ascertain before rejecting a time-barred request that the staff member has not been misled by the administration on the terms of his appeal.

The representative, proposed by the staff to sit on a mixed staff-administration consultative body and appointed by the High Commissioner, may legally sit on the said body even though the staff association which proposed him has withdrawn its confidence. the fact that this staff representative is, after his designation, appointed to an inspection function is not in itself sufficient to create a situation of conflict of interest preventing him from sitting. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives...

It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration must apply the regulation in force. Paragraph 5 of article 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Statutes imposes on the judge, in certain cases to set compensation that the Respondent may choose to pay in lieu of the annulment of the contested administrative decision. The judge takes into account the material damage...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant had until 2 February 2009 to file an appeal before the Joint Appeals Board. However, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was dated 27 February 2009 and was not received by the Joint Appeals Board until 3 March 2009. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not present any exceptional circumstance that prevented him from filing an appeal within the time limits prescribed in the Staff Rules then in effect. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the request was therefore irreceivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

±¬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 found that in as much as the Applicant¡¯s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant¡¯s request but on the Administration¡¯s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that it was established that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant¡¯s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the ±¬ÁÏÍø staff as of 18 August 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant¡¯s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General¡¯s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, if implemented, would...

±¬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.