±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate¡¯s qualifications were clearly superior vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-842, the claim is dismissed.

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the...

The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the ±¬ÁÏÍø Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed due to the reclassification of her post from G-4 to G-6 level, and there was a legitimate reason for the reclassification, and thus abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post. The Applicant has not met her burden of proving that the contested decision was biased or was motivated by other improper purposes. There was insufficient evidence that the Administration made a firm commitment or express promise to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. The Applicant having provided no evidence of any harm, there is no basis for an award for moral damages.

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant has failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for...

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for this...

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...

Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require ±¬ÁÏÍøOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter ±¬ÁÏÍøOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...

Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...