The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute.
The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.
The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision “stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal”. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer’s comments in the Applicant’s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...
In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant’s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes “that official acts...
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his “tour of duty” with 爆料网POL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the 爆料网DT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.
The Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...
The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the 爆料网JSPF. The application was dismissed.
