Â鶹APP

The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant, as a 15-day candidate, had been given priority consideration, in compliance with section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3. It concluded that the Applicant had been considered first than 30-day candidates and found unsuitable for the post before any meaningful consideration of 30-day candidates took place. Priority consideration as per section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3: This provision, as consistently interpreted by the Dispute and the Appeals Tribunals, requires that 15-day and 30-day candidates be considered separately; 15-day candidates must be considered first and, if...

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.

It is clear from the reimbursable loan agreement that UNAMID and WFP agreed on the Applicant¡¯s loan at the P-5 level. He thus had no reason to believe that he would be paid at the D-1 level or that he would be promoted to that level by UNAMID. Although the Applicant was informed of his selection for the Deputy Director post, he never received a letter of appointment from UNAMID which could have created contractual rights in his favour. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that UNAMID made any promise to him or committed any fault for which it could be held responsible.

The Tribunal found that the intervention of the head of department in the appointment of the selection panel constituted a procedural flaw in the selection process. Since the Applicant had not requested the rescission of the contested decision but only compensation, the Tribunal examined whether such irregularity had caused any damage to the Applicant. It found that the latter, who had been proposed for the post, had failed to establish any causal link between the procedural flaw in the selection process and his non-selection. Selection panel: Although ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 is silent on the...

The Tribunal found that the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9 did not allow the reclassification of the Applicant¡¯s post and concluded accordingly that the Applicant had no grounds for contesting the refusal to reclassify his post. The Tribunal further found that the Administration¡¯s delays in notifying the Applicant of the reclassification decision, even though the decision was well-founded, had caused him to suffer moral damage, for which the Tribunal awarded EUR2,000.

The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an ¡°administrative decision¡± subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other...

The Tribunal found that the application, in so far as it impugned a decision that had been rescinded, had to be rejected as irreceivable. Concerning the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation for moral injury allegedly arising from the contested decision, the Tribunal considered that the causal effect between the Applicant¡¯s troubles and the contested decision had not been demonstrated by the medical certificates provided and thus rejected the claim, without ruling on its receivability. The Tribunal further rejected the Respondent¡¯s request for award of costs against the Applicant because it did...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration¡¯s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant¡¯s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant¡¯s supervisors¡¯ assessment...

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 finds that none of the applicable provisions prevented the renewal of fixed-term appointments for a period of less than a year. It further finds that the alignment policy was properly issued and rejects the Applicant¡¯s allegations of improper motives and discrimination. Terminology: renewal/extension: The wording of staff rule 4.12 and 4.13 shows an undifferentiated use of the terms ¡°renewal¡± and ¡°extension¡±. Delegation of authority: A delegation of power should not be guessed at or presumed. Organizational measure: A policy which consists, for a UN Secretariat office away from...