±¬ÁÏÍø

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

Even though the contested decision resulted in a reduction of the Applicant¡¯s responsibilities, by removing from her all authority over this section which she previously managed, the challenged decision is in itself a simple decision of organization of a service, which is not open to appeal before the Tribunal. Indeed, it results from the Staff Rules and from the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that a staff member may only contest before the Tribunal an administrative decision which affects his or her rights as provided for in his or her letter of appointment and administrative issuances applicable to...

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Outcome: The respondent is to pay interest from the date the payment of the relocation grant became due, namely 4 May 2008, and until payment at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

Outcome: Held that a preponderance of evidence supports that the impugned changes were motivated by genuine organizational readjustments and were not influenced by any improper considerations. Held the preponderance of evidence established that the Organization had acted appropriately. Application dismissed.

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d¡¯Ecriture et de Communication (¡°the Centre¡±), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not ¡°five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989¡±. These prerequisites did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...

In this case the initial inquiry was inadequate and affected by bias. Outcome: Applicant awarded USD20,000 for breach of contractual right. Parties directed to make submissions as to whether ST/AI/371 is still operative or has been implicitly appealed by ST/SGB/2009/7. Further hearing to decide as to whether USG¡¯s conduct should be referred to the SG for possible action to enforce accountability pursuant to art 10.8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.