51ÁÔÆæ

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel argues that ¡°technical difficulties¡± and an ¡°internal oversight¡± prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the ¡°error message¡± provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...

The reason given to the Applicant for the impugned decision, namely, the organizational restructuring at UNFPA, is supported by the facts. Evidence shows that UNFPA suffered the significant financial shortfalls, and UNFPA, facing such a precarious financial situation, undertook the genuine organizational restructuring which resulted in the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post and the termination of her appointment. While the Applicant claims improper motives, the Tribunal finds that she presented no supporting evidence and thus did not meet the burden of proof in this regard. The Organization¡¯s...

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

The Applicant did not mention a relevant experience in his personal history profile. Although the Applicant disagreed with the hiring manager¡¯s evaluation of the relevance of his experience, he failed to establish that the hiring manager¡¯s assessment was unreasonable. The hiring manager did not introduce additional criteria to evaluate the job candidates. The minimum work experience requirements for the position were not an unlawful deviation from the generic job profile for the position or unduly restrictive. The hiring manager¡¯s decision to not administer a written test was within his...

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

The Applicant did not respond to a case management order. She was therefore no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the proceedings which were deemed to have been abandoned. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.