Â鶹APP

Management evaluation: Claims against decisions that have not been the subject of a request for management evaluation are not receivable before the Tribunal. An applicant may not seek any rulings or relief in relation to these decisions. The events surrounding them may be part of the factual matrix of the application but they are peripheral at best. Project document: There is no mandatory requirement in the rules or any Administrative Instructions for a project document to be finalised prior to the responsible staff member taking up the project post. Authority for lateral transfers under ST/AI...

There was no evidence that established that the work place had become intimidating, hostile or offensive for the Complainant. The charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained in the circumstances to the extent that the Complainant was a willing participant in sex talks in emails, via telephone, via text messages and in person. While it is recognised that a rebuttable presumption of law or fact may exist where a certain set of facts are present, there is definitely no room for making a legal finding based on presumptions about what would likely be the case in a given situation. It is a trite...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.

Time limits for requesting administrative review: Due to the pronouncement of the Appeals Tribunal in Costa, the Dispute Tribunal is unable to suspend or waive deadlines with respect to administrative review or management evaluation, irrespective of the circumstances of each case. Unless an appropriate case is put before the Appeals Tribunal and it decides to limit the seemingly absolute application of the pronouncements of Costa as it currently stands, this Tribunal is bound to follow them, even where sick leave or other intervening events would render filing impossible for an applicant...

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member¡¯s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...

Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant¡¯s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

UNDT noted that it had not received any application or correspondence from the Applicant after the outcome of his management evaluation request was received. UNDT closed the case for lack of prosecution.

Receivability: Since the Applicant was a staff member of UNOG when the contested decision was taken, it indeed affected his terms of appointment. The Tribunal is thus competent to examine the case in accordance with article 2.1 of its Statute. Selection procedure: UNHCR based its decision on the advice of UNDSS which did not grant clearance to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy. However, UNHCR was not compelled to follow the advice of UNDSS concerning the candidacy of the Applicant because this practice is not codified in any legal text of regulatory character. Hence, the contested decision is illegal...

The Tribunal held that the Programme Manager failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s candidacy at the 15-day mark as provided by ST/AI/2006/3. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that she was put in a pool with 30-day mark candidates and that most of these candidates were considered before she was. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been fully and fairly considered because the Programme Manager and two of the Interview Panel members had deemed her unsuitable for the contested post prior to the commencement of the interview process. Since the Interview Panel failed to...