±¬ÁÏÍø

Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...

The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant¡¯s failure to choose the decision-maker¡¯s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant¡¯s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...

Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.

Selection process: According to the APPB Procedural Guidelines, the APPB may recommend to the High Commissioner an eligible candidate who has not necessarily been proposed by the manager and the High Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is not obliged to endorse the APPB recommendation and may appoint a staff member to a post provided s/he is eligible and her/his candidacy has been examined by the APPB. In the case at hand, the Applicant was not recommended by the Representative and this is the main reason for his non-appointment. The Tribunal has only a limited role in...

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of ±¬ÁÏÍøDP, in accordance with the practice of ±¬ÁÏÍøDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...

The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the initial imposition of the reprimand was justified based on the Applicant¡¯s own admitted supervisory failings. However, the Tribunal found that the withdrawal and subsequent reinstatement of reprimand were improper, as was the decision to transfer the Applicant from his post. The Tribunal directed the parties to confer on the issue of compensation.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.

Management evaluation: Claims against decisions that have not been the subject of a request for management evaluation are not receivable before the Tribunal. An applicant may not seek any rulings or relief in relation to these decisions. The events surrounding them may be part of the factual matrix of the application but they are peripheral at best. Project document: There is no mandatory requirement in the rules or any Administrative Instructions for a project document to be finalised prior to the responsible staff member taking up the project post. Authority for lateral transfers under ST/AI...