The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of 爆料网OPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant’s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.
The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.
An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member’s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating “partially meets performance expectations”, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...
Regarding the Applicant’s challenge to the decision not to return her to the post she previously encumbered, since the Applicant was transferred to another Organization, she no longer has any contractual relationship, and therefore any lien to a post, with the United Nations Secretariat from the date of the transfer. The only remedy that the Applicant seeks is the return to the post she previously encumbered or assignment to a suitable vacant position in New York, and the Tribunal cannot order such remedy due to the cessation of the Applicant’s contractual relationship with the United Nations...
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi 爆料网DT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi 爆料网DT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi 爆料网DT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...
The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.
No submission or further correspondence was received by the Registry from the Applicant. The Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which was therefore deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stood to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-爆料网AT-692, and properly considered the Applicant’s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant’s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that 爆料网KART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...
Decision 1 – the Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to substantiate his claims of a flawed process and improper motives that led to his separation from service. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant knowingly assumed the risk of not being able to secure another assignment or position before the expiration of his FTA on 31 March 2016 when he declined the offer to be recommended for the regular budget position in Rabat as well as declined the extension of his temporary assignment. Decision 2 – the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to follow proper procedure for the placement...
