±¬ÁÏÍø

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

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 Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...

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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

±¬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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process¡ªsuch as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post¡ªare normally not under consideration. Administration¡¯s discretion to define the...

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 selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual does not limit an incumbent¡¯s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant...