±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent¡¯s assertion, the ABCC¡¯s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC¡¯s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant¡¯s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±)...

The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.

Management evaluation request The ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policies and Procedures Manual provides that they shall be submitted using a form annexed to said Manual and sent to a precise email address. While the Tribunal recognizes that the Applicant has not followed the established formalities to request management evaluation, i.e., use of a form and a specified email address, it cannot be overlooked that he exercised due diligence to ensure that his documented request reached the Executive Director, ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA and that, moreover, his request was acknowledged. The latter, in turn, brings the Tribunal to conclude that...

Any changes to the Applicant¡¯s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office¡¯s work. The Applicant¡¯s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The Applicant does not question whether this presentation of the applicable law is comprehensible, but rather intends to reargue his case that the contested selection processes were unlawful. As the Tribunal further finds that paras. 14 to 17, as well as the remaining parts of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2020/075, are straightforward and easy to understand.

The Administration informed the Applicant that ¡°it will issue an administrative reprimand¡±. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct ¡°with the interests of the United Nations only in view¡± and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF before expressing her personal views, that...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant¡¯s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable.

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...