51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability/administrative decision: Preparatory measures such as the decision not to prepare a work plan for the purpose of appraising a staff member¡¯s performance can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal. Rebuttal procedure: It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that a staff member may not challenge before the Tribunal his/her performance rating unless he/she has previously initiated the rebuttal process provided for in this administrative instruction.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The UNDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The UNDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant¡¯s case rests firmly at her own door.

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

Appealable decisions: According to article 2.1(a) of the Statute, a staff member may not contest before the Tribunal a decision which does not affect his or her rights under the staff member¡¯s contract of employment or terms of appointment.Decisions on publication of United Nations documents: Pursuant to former staff rule 112.7 and staff rule 1.9, all rights on documents prepared by a staff member as part of his or her functions following his or her supervisors¡¯ instructions and under their supervision belong to the Organization only. Accordingly, a decision on the publication of such document...

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Moreover, it had not caused her any prejudice. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.