51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the UNDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of UNCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

The 11 percent increase in the US Embassy salaries from June 2008 were properly factored into the calculations, but the 2010 increase fell outside the data range for the collection and consideration of data for the 2010 review. There was no evidence of ill motivation or breaches of the relevant rules and guidelines by the Administration.; The Administration did not breach any of the provisions of the Manual when it reached the decision concerning family expenditure surveys. The Office of Human Resources Management used the correct criteria for deciding if a spousal allowance should be created...

The post of Director of Human Rights in UNMISS was not a reclassification of the D-1 post held by the Applicant at UNMIS but a new post created to meet the need of UNMISS. It was classified as D-2 and the post held by the Applicant ceased to exist upon its abolition.; Given the importence of the Human Rights function in the new State, a D-2 post was justified. This was done in an objective manner having regard to the Secretary Council Resolution that governed the transition.; The evidence established that the consideration of the post of the Chief of Human Rights was done in conjunction with...

The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Applicant argued that the decision was made in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The UNDT found that the decision was illegal since documentary evidence showed that the Administration applied the notion of ¡°public administration¡± randomly and that based on the Applicant¡¯s educational credentials, he ought to have been invited to participate in the examination in question. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not submit conclusive evidence that the decision was...

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

Staff rule 12/3(b) ¨C exception to staff rules: The Tribunal held that under the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the requests from MINURSO recognizing the Applicant¡¯s suitability for the post and the Mission¡¯s dire operational needs, for the Respondent to have properly complied with staff rule 12.3(b), the Applicant¡¯s existing educational qualifications along with his professional qualifications and language skills should have been considered regardless of whether or not they were equivalent to a high school diploma.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office¡¯s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from UNDP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...