Â鶹APP

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant¡¯s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

Consultations: ¡°Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies¡± does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the Â鶹APP Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision and set the alternative amount of compensation at USD8,000. The Tribunal further awarded USD6,000 to the Applicant for moral damage suffered. Rescission/Alternative compensation: Pursuant to article 10.5(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, in a case concerning promotion, the Administration may choose either to implement the ruling annulling the contested decision or to pay the amount fixed as alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. In the first hypothesis, the selection procedure will be restarted and, if the Applicant applies and is eventually...

Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.

UNDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. UNDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.

UNDT noted that the contested decision was superseded by the 31 March 2011 decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment for another six months. UNDT held that the application was thus rendered moot and decided to close the case.

UNDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

Case No. UNDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.