51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant¡¯s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years ¡°partially meets expectations¡±. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

Receivability: A decision which does not merely confirm a previous decision, but shows that in the meantime, efforts have been made by the Administration to find an alternative arrangement and sets a new deadline, may be considered as a new decision, which has the effect of setting a new time limit for requesting administrative review. In accordance with article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute, the three-year time limit cannot be extended, even in exceptional cases within the meaning of article 8.3 of the Statute. The Dispute Tribunal is not competent to hear the case under article 2.7 (transitional...

UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...

1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant¡¯s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...

With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant¡¯s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly¡¯s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.