Â鶹APP

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant¡¯s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The UNDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The UNDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the UNDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the UNDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The IAMA requires the receiving organization to recognize a staff member¡¯s service in the releasing organization for ¡°credit¡± purposes. However, it does not require it to consider that the performance of the contract in the releasing organization was undertaken in a setting other than in its original one. It cannot be considered that the Applicant¡¯s contract was, prior to joining the Â鶹APP, either under the control of the Secretary-General of the Â鶹APP or that the Applicant had to previously answer to the Â鶹APP staff rules. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet the...

Receivability ratione temporis: The 60-day period specified in staff rule 11.2 to request management evaluation starts to run from the date of notification of a final decision. Applicable law: While annual leave entitlements are accrued on a monthly basis, the right to be compensated for accrued annual leave arises at the time when the staff member is separated from service. Thus, in assessing the lawfulness of a decision denying payment of annual leave, the Tribunal must take into consideration the provisions in effect at the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service.

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate ¡°from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy¡± is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.