Â鶹APP

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...

Receivability; The Tribunal was satisfied that the object of the application was sufficiently clear and determined that it was two-folded finding that: a)On the one hand, the Applicant challenged the deduction of 25% of his salary implementing the alimony order of a Kazakh court; and; b)On the other hand, the Applicant contested the Administration¡¯s refusal to recognize his concerned daughter (El.) as his dependent for the purpose of the Â鶹APP¡¯ child dependency benefits.; With respect to the refusal to recognize child El. as the Applicant¡¯s dependent for the purpose of the United...

The Tribunal noted that the provisions of both the former Staff Rules and the former mobility Administrative Instruction were very clear in that staff members holding temporary appointments are not eligible to receive mobility allowance.; The Tribunal found that the period when the Applicant held temporary appointments could not count towards the requirement of five years¡¯ prior consecutive service.; The Tribunal noted that the Applicant resigned in 2014 from his appointment in the General Service category, which he had held since 1993, and later received successive temporary appointments for...

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression ¡°net base salary¡± was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant¡¯s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not...

Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the UNICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant¡¯s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant¡¯s request for...

It is unequivocally incumbent upon the Organization to provide anyone who files a complaint with a properly reasoned decision, especially when the complaint is being rejected. This also enables the staff member to promptly exercise other available options including a challenge to that decision. Endless email communications do not provide staff members with finality of a determination, thus placing them in a precarious situation if they are to challenge such a decision taking note of statutory time-limits.; This Tribunal found that the decision of the former UNICEF Representative PCO not to...

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant¡¯s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

Reason for non-renewal; It is commonplace that once the Respondent gives a staff member a reason for the nonrenewal of contract, such a reason must be supported by facts (Islam 2011-UNAT-115); The fact that the Respondent conceded that he could not demonstrate the lack of funds leading to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract leads the Tribunal to draw the negative inference that UNICEF PCO had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract based on other reasons that were disclosed neither to the Applicant nor to this Tribunal.; Furthermore, the Tribunal does not find that the fact that...

The Applicant was invited to and successfully passed the assessment process, during which the assessment panel evaluated his technical skills and competencies through a written test and a competency-based interview, pursuant to sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. As a consequence, the Applicant was placed on the list of recommended candidates by the hiring manager for review by the CRC, pursuant to secs. 7.6 and 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. Both parties agree that this evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.; In reviewing the selection process, the CRC...