±¬ÁÏÍø

In ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NY/2019/012, the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision within 60 days and the application in this respect is therefore not receivable. In ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NY/2018/045, the Applicant only learned the real reasons underlying the decision not to select him for the position at the management evaluation stage. Therefore, he was allowed to introduce arguments concerning these reasons in his application before the Dispute Tribunal even if he had not raised them at the management evaluation stage. The Administration decided to select two female...

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

As the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae under staff 11.2(a). Related

The Tribunal¡¯s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration when it comes to the evaluation of job candidates. All that is required from the Administration is that it minimally shows that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given a full and fair consideration. The applicable legal framework allowed the consideration of gender and geographical diversity in the recruitment process.

As of the date of this Judgment, the Applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s orders. The Applicant did not submit an updated medical certificate explaining his failure to comply. The proceedings cannot continue when Counsel is not instructed by her client. The Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the legal proceedings, which were therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and the matter was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not extended beyond its expiration due to the liquidation of the Mission. The decision not to extend the appointment was supported by the evidence and therefore lawful. The fact that the Applicant had incurred in personal debt does not generate an obligation on the Administration to find her an alternate post upon the closure of the Mission.

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately¡ªit was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration¡¯s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misrepresentations, including the...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.