51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant did in fact contest the administrative decision to transfer him to Brindisi based on him having been declared PNG by the Syrian authorities and, thus, finds that the application is receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal had no reason to question the testimony from the CMSS and found that the reason provided by the Administration to remove the Applicant from UNDOF¡ª namely that he had been declared PNG¡ªwas supported by the evidence. The Tribunal found that in a situation where the Organization is bound to take prompt action to reassign a staff...

The application is not receivable. The Applicant, as a staff member at the relevant time period, had a right to be fully and fairly considered as part of the terms of his former employment. Since the Applicant decided not to apply for JO 41653 in the belief that the post in question would be abolished according to the budget proposal for OICT, the question is whether he is entitled to a review of the contested decision despite his decision not to apply for the job opening. It is not disputed that the budget proposal for OICT was not adopted at the time of the publication and closing of JO...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of UNDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...