Â鶹APP

In declaring the Applicant¡¯s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

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...

In view of the evidence available and the Applicant¡¯s refusal to disclose evidence that could exonerate her and that she alone could have produced, the Tribunal considered that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Section 20 of the Convention of the privileges and immunities of the Â鶹APP provides that privileges such as VAT exemption are granted to staff members in the interests of the Â鶹APP and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. Section 21 further provides that the Â鶹APP shall cooperate at all times...

The Tribunal reiterated a general principle of procedural law that the right to institute legal proceedings is based on a legitimate interest in initiating and maintaining legal action. Access to the court is denied to those who are obviously no longer interested in the proceedings they once instituted. This applies to the Applicant who did not respond to any of the Tribunal¡¯s requests.

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 UNDT...

Even though the contested decision resulted in a reduction of the Applicant¡¯s responsibilities, by removing from her all authority over this section which she previously managed, the challenged decision is in itself a simple decision of organization of a service, which is not open to appeal before the Tribunal. Indeed, it results from the Staff Rules and from the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that a staff member may only contest before the Tribunal an administrative decision which affects his or her rights as provided for in his or her letter of appointment and administrative issuances applicable to...

The Tribunal examined whether the two-year limitation for the recovery of the overpayment as stated in ST/AI/2009/1 applied to the case at hand. While it was undisputed that the overpayment resulted from an error on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal found that the Applicant could not seriously claim that she was unaware or that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the overpayment, and it therefore concluded that the two- year limitation could not apply to her.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable because the contested decision is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 11.2(b) and accordingly the time limits applicable under art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute should have been complied with. It clearly follows from staff rule 11.2(b) that the exemption from the requirement to request the management evaluation of a disciplinary measure only applies to disciplinary measures imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process.

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal examined whether the compensation granted to her by the Respondent was adequate to provide reparation for the damage she suffered as a result of the irregularities committed. The Tribunal found that none of her allegations was proven. It considered that the Applicant did not suffer any material damage as a result of the contested decision and that the compensation already given to her was sufficient to repair any moral damage. Selection procedure: It is for the Administration to determine the suitability of each candidate and the Tribunal should not substitute its judgment to that...