±¬ÁÏÍø

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant¡¯s First Reporting Officer¡¯s (¡°FRO¡±) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of ¡°Successfully Meets Expectations¡±, the comments of the Applicant¡¯s Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant ¡°consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively¡± and commending her ¡°ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is ¡°serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment¡± for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in ±¬ÁÏÍøEP (part of the Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing ¡°non...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

In the present case, according to the Applicant¡¯s own submissions, he was not in a situation of ¡°an absolute impossibility¡± of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it ¡°to be perfect¡±. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

Although the Applicant disagrees with the assessment made during the interview as to whether she satisfied particular competency requirements and regarding her overall suitability for the post, the interview panel was entitled to come to its own conclusions regarding the Applicant¡¯s suitability.

The Tribunals have consistently held that it is not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the hiring manager or the decision-maker. The Tribunal's review is limited to ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that there was no improper...