Â鶹APP

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to OHRM¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant¡¯s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...

Receivability - The arguments that this Application is not receivable were premised on the provisions of section 5 of ST/AI/1998/9 which is the legislation governing the policies and procedures for the classification and reclassification of posts. In the instant case, there was no attempt or effort made to reclassify the Applicant¡¯s post. The Respondent¡¯s preliminary objection that this Application is not receivable is therefore irrelevant and accordingly dismissed. Admissibility of evidence ¨C In considering the Respondent¡¯s prayer with regard to the admissibility of Annex 13, the Tribunal...

Home leave: The Tribunal concluded that there is nothing in staff rule 5.2 which indicates that the extension or the duration of the extension of a contract of employment is to be decided along with the sick leave entitlements of a staff member. Extension and sick leave cannot be merged to motivate a decision on whether to extend a contract or not. The entitlement to home leave is premised on 12 months service at a designated duty station with the sole condition that the service of the staff member is expected to continue at least three months after the staff member returns to the duty station...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying UNAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying UNAT¡¯s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the Â鶹APP and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proof in showing that her non-selection for the upgraded post and her subsequent separation from the Organization were motivated by bias, procedural breaches, retaliation and other improper motives. Procedural flaws - The UNIFEM Selection Guidelines were not complied with during the selection process. The Tribunal found several procedural flaws in the selection process. Priority Consideration - Priority consideration is only to be exercised if an Applicant entitled to it is recommended for appointment following an interview...