51ÁÔÆæ

The changes in the composition of the assessment panel constituted a procedural error. The choice was left to the hiring manager between different assessment methods. As the Applicant was shortlisted for the competency-based interview, she suffered no prejudice from the absence of a written test. The Applicant disagreed with the evaluation method elected by the Administration but failed to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion in this respect. It could not be concluded that the Applicant would have obtained a different result had the composition of the panel been the same for...

The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant¡¯s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other...

As the matter was settled by mutual agreement, the case is closed.

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for this...

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed due to the reclassification of her post from G-4 to G-6 level, and there was a legitimate reason for the reclassification, and thus abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post. The Applicant has not met her burden of proving that the contested decision was biased or was motivated by other improper purposes. There was insufficient evidence that the Administration made a firm commitment or express promise to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. The Applicant having provided no evidence of any harm, there is no basis for an award for moral damages.

The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the UN Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-UNAT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-UNAT-842, the claim is dismissed.

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...