Â鶹APP

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 24?July?2019 was time-barred, and thus the present application is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant¡¯s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant¡¯s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...

The Administration held sufficient consultations with staff on the restructuring of WMO Secretariat by: announcing the restructuring sufficiently in advance, holding meetings with staff representatives and setting up a consultation mechanism to hear staff concerns. The Administration had the Applicant, a permanent appointment holder whose post was abolished, undergo a pre-screening interview for a vacant post along with all the other pre-selected candidates. In so doing, the Administration failed to afford the Applicant priority non-competitive consideration. The Tribunal ordered the...

The selection process is still ongoing. It has therefore not yet yielded a final reviewable administrative decision having an impact on the legal order. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the ¡°contested administrative decision¡± at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and...

The decision to replace the Applicant as Departmental Focal Point for Women is reviewable because it affects her rights as a staff member under ST/SGB/2008/12. The Applicant's role as Departmental Focal Point for Women is not a staff representative. The Respondent did not show a conflict of interest between the Applicant¡¯s role as Departmental Focal Point for Women and her membership of the OHCHR Staff Committee. The High Commissioner had no authority under ST/SGB/2008/12 to remove the Applicant from her functions prior to the expiry of her mandate. Reinstatement of the Applicant was not...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.

As the remedy requested in the application had already been obtained, the Tribunal rejects the application as moot.

Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member¡¯s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO¡¯s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable on two grounds: 1) Ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision has no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment, and 2) Because it is premature since at the time of the filing of the application, the relevant response period for the management evaluation was still running.