51ÁÔÆæ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Receivability ratione temporis: The 60-day period specified in staff rule 11.2 to request management evaluation starts to run from the date of notification of a final decision. Applicable law: While annual leave entitlements are accrued on a monthly basis, the right to be compensated for accrued annual leave arises at the time when the staff member is separated from service. Thus, in assessing the lawfulness of a decision denying payment of annual leave, the Tribunal must take into consideration the provisions in effect at the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service.

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate ¡°from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy¡± is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that at least 78 candidates had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process and no procedural irregularity with an impact on her status as well as a probability for promotion...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion.The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that there were candidates who had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process. The Tribunal further noted that although mistakes occurred, which were then corrected and...

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine on its own motion the issue of receivability even if the parties did not raise it.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had been grossly negligent in that a duty-conscious and vigilant Logistics Assistant in the Applicant¡¯s position ought to have reasonably foreseen that the documents in possession of Mr Weah were sufficient to enable him to misappropriate the containers. The sanction was fair and proportionate. The Application therefore failed. Negligence test: Three elements which must be established to prove gross negligence; namely, (1) a failure in the form of an act or omission to exercise the requisite standard of care; (2) the standard of care required is that which a...