±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

The Tribunal found that ST/AI/292 had been complied with, in particular paragraph 2 which provides that adverse material may not be included in the personnel file unless it has been shown to the staff member concerned and the staff member has been given an opportunity to make comments thereon. The Administration not only can but must place in a staff member¡¯s personnel file all documents related to his/her service, provided the provisions of ST/AI/292 have been complied with.

The Administration did not have a legal obligation towards the Applicant to take action at any stage in relation to the fraud. No legally relevant relationship between OCHA and the Applicant existed; the fact that the Applicant¡¯s aunt submitted her applications to a ±¬ÁÏÍø staff member did not create such a relationship. No Organization is bound to respond to uninvited applications for jobs that the Organization had not previously announced. Neither OCHA nor any other Organization can be made liable for criminal abuse of its name and reputation.The Applicant, who resigned from her post in ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA...

He filed his request for administrative review on 2 December 2008 and his application before the Tribunal on 13 January 2010. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was first informed of the contested decision, in writing, on 5 February 2008, and that he also received written reiterations of the same decision in March and April 2008. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to request administrative review of the decision not to renew his contract within the applicable time limit and that the Tribunal was proscribed, under Costa 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-036, from waiving it. The Tribunal found that, even...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The procedures set out in ST/AI/2002/3 on the performance appraisal system were not complied with. While section 8.3 requires that as soon as a performance shortcoming is identified, the first reporting officer should discuss the situation with the staff member and take steps in consultation with him/her to rectify the situation, in the present case the Applicant received the rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± without being informed through the performance appraisal system of his shortcomings and thus without being given the opportunity to improve his performance. Since the...

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed to comply with the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment of limited duration carried no expectancy of renewal and that there were no countervailing circumstances which could have created such expectancy. It also found that the reason for non-renewal, namely the negative impact that allegations then made against the Applicant in the local media could have on the Organization, was supported by the facts and that the non-renewal decision therefore constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion. Scope of discretion of the Secretary-General in non-renewal cases: It is within the...

The Applicant made good faith efforts to comply with his financial disclosure obligations for 2005. The Secretary-General failed to take into account the various mitigating factors in favour of the Applicant when determining the sanction against him. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was far more excessive than was necessary for obtaining the desired purposes of the financial disclosure program. The appropriate disciplinary measure in the present case should be a reprimand.