±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. The application was dismissed.

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: ±¬ÁÏÍøON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87¨C88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal¡¯s order in para. 87 of Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Application was not res judicata. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2013/014). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

When joining ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for ±¬ÁÏÍø purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, since it was directed against decisions with regulatory power. The issuance of secondary salary scales to staff recruited on or after 1 March 2012 is not of individual application and does not produce direct legal consequences; it constitutes an administrative act with regulatory power, but not an administrative decision under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The freeze of existing salary scales in effect since 1 August 2010 applies to a group of staff members defined exclusively by their status and...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the decision to pay the multiplier of 65.5 from 1 August 2012 through 31 January 2013 to all professional staff member with duty station New York, constitutes a decision with regulatory power and not an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal further found that decision to pay the Applicants the amount calculated on the basis of the 65.5 for the month of January 2013 as reflected in their respective statement of earning, constitutes an administrative decision hence the application...