±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability While staff rule 11.2(c) does not explicitly require written notification, sec. 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/3 does so in cases of non-selection for candidates that had been convoked for assessment. Since the Applicant was convoked for assessment¡ª i.e. she was invited to take the written test¡ªand she was not successful, she had to be notified in writing. Therefore, and although the Applicant became fully aware of her non-selection on 26 May 2016, the Tribunal found that the statutory time limit for the request for management evaluation did not start to run on that day and the application...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant did in fact contest the administrative decision to transfer him to Brindisi based on him having been declared PNG by the Syrian authorities and, thus, finds that the application is receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal had no reason to question the testimony from the CMSS and found that the reason provided by the Administration to remove the Applicant from ±¬ÁÏÍøDOF¡ª namely that he had been declared PNG¡ªwas supported by the evidence. The Tribunal found that in a situation where the Organization is bound to take prompt action to reassign a staff...

The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and ±¬ÁÏÍøISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

Receivability The Respondent challenged the receivability ratione materiae of the application, arguing that the final administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 24 November 2016. The Tribunal found that no final decision had been taken on 24 November 2016, and that the matter was being further reviewed, on the basis of new elements and discussions, inter alia, with the President of ICTY. Therefore, by filing her request for management evaluation on 21 January 2017, against the communication of 29 November 2016 denying her release, the Applicant respected the statutory deadline of...

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days¡¯ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an ¡°assessment...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

In circumstances where an applicant is not provided with the whole of the documentation involved in a matter sought to be brought before the Tribunal, it is essential that as material is provided to an applicant there be a right to amend an application. To not allow the amendment of the application would not ¡°do justice to the parties¡± or ¡°lead to the fair disposal of the case¡±. Clearly, not permitting an amendment of the application when the true state of affairs is revealed for the first time by the Respondent would offend the inherent obligations of the Tribunal consistent with the...

The Tribunal finds it noteworthy that in relation to functional delegation of authority, the person in whom authority is vested by virtue of his/her position/function has the power to delegate that authority. However, such delegation does not equate to the delegator definitively ridding himself/herself of the powers and authority that he or she delegates. Legally, a delegator continues to maintain the powers and authority that he or she has delegated, and such delegation is thus revocable at any time. Therefore, both parties¡¯ arguments that the USG/OIOS could or should have ¡°surrendered¡± her...

From both the testimonies and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, it found as established that the dire financial situation at ±¬ÁÏÍøDP KCO, as it related to the ¡°11888 fund¡±, was the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant did not produce any evidence allowing the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of the contested decision, the ¡°11888 fund¡± still had funds to allow the Organization to renew her contract. While it is not contested that an incident occurred during the mission to Rwanda in 2014, the Tribunal does not find that the testimonies and...