±¬ÁÏÍø

She alleged that the Administration advised her wrongly to resign from her 100-series fixed-term appointment (FTA) with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP, Kosovo, in 2007, when she was offered a FTA with ±¬ÁÏÍøV, Bonn, and argued that her resignation cannot be taken into account when assessing her eligibility for consideration for conversion, namely the requirement of 5-year continuous service. Following requests for additional information, the Tribunal found that the Administration put the Applicant into an illegal situation when she was first offered a 300-series appointment of limited duration with ±¬ÁÏÍøV, Bonn, while she...

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

The Tribunal found that the decision was lawful and that the case file did not allow concluding that it was tainted by favoritism for the selected, external candidate, inter alia, since the HM had initially recommended an internal candidate. Procedural irregularities: The decision not to convoke a shortlisted, internal candidate, who was not recommended by the HM, for a test and/or interview is in accordance with the applicable rules at ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR. ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR policy on comparative review is not applicable in cases of non-selection not involving the abolition of post. Discretionary authority: In...

Jurisdiction over decisions of the Ethics Office: The work of the Ethics Office is delicate in nature and its functions have a direct impact on staff member¡¯s rights. Therefore, in view of the case law of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the decision of the Ethics Office is an administrative decision and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review such a decision. Duration for conducting a preliminary assessment by the Ethics Office: The nature of the work of the Ethics Office requires timely reaction for effective protection of any ¡®whistle-blowing¡¯ activity. Although the duration of 45 days mentioned in section 5.3 of ST...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS to WHO and back to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, and her separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration¡¯s reasons for the decision were acceptable.