51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. UNDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant¡¯s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General¡¯s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. UNDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, if implemented, would...

UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s case was limited to the amount of adequate compensation for the failure to adequately and timeously consider his complaint and that his other claims, including with respect to the termination of his appointment, were not properly before it. UNDT found that the Administration was required¡ªbut failed¡ªto undertake an adequate and timeous initial inquiry into the applicant¡¯s allegations. UNDT found that the applicant substantiated his claims of emotional distress and injury and must be compensated for it. However, UNDT found that the applicant failed to show that...

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. UNDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. UNDT found that the Applicant...

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant¡¯s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

Consultations: ¡°Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies¡± does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

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 United Nations 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 rescinded the contested decision and set the alternative amount of compensation at USD8,000. The Tribunal further awarded USD6,000 to the Applicant for moral damage suffered. Rescission/Alternative compensation: Pursuant to article 10.5(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, in a case concerning promotion, the Administration may choose either to implement the ruling annulling the contested decision or to pay the amount fixed as alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. In the first hypothesis, the selection procedure will be restarted and, if the Applicant applies and is eventually...

Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.

UNDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. UNDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.

UNDT noted that the contested decision was superseded by the 31 March 2011 decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment for another six months. UNDT held that the application was thus rendered moot and decided to close the case.