51ÁÔÆæ

It would make no logical sense to rescind the ¡°the decision to withdraw the offer [the Applicant] received from [the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (¡°UNAMID¡±)] for the post of Security Officer at the FS-4 level¡± because, as a matter of fact, the post no longer exist since it was abolished by 31 December 2017.

The Applicant¡¯s claim of breach of duty of care is not receivable since he did not submit a separate claim for breach of duty of care to the Secretary-General for consideration and decision. While the review of the breach of duty of care claim is requested in the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, this does not cure the procedural defect which is the Applicant¡¯s failure to request the Secretary-General¡¯s consideration and decision. The decision to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim under Appendix D Regarding the claim that the Secretary of ABCC did not have the valid delegated authority...

The two desirable criteria that the Applicant was deemed not to have met were indeed listed in the vacancy announcement for the post. It was therefore legitimate for the Respondent under sec. 7.4 of ST/AI/2020/3 to review the candidates against such criteria and use them to determine which of the candidates were more suitable for the post. The Applicant does not show that the description of her duties and responsibilities in her personal history profile demonstrated to the Hiring Manager that she had the required experience. The Respondent did not abuse his discretion in evaluating the...

The Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal was fair and supported by the facts in evidence. The Administration was justified in deciding not to extend the Applicant¡¯s temporary appointment for poor performance. There was no justification to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond the maximum 364 days. The Applicant filed a complaint of harassment after she had received the request for management evaluation. She was therefore not able to show a link between her complaint and the decision not to renew her appointment given that the decision occurred months before the filing of the complaint. There...

Under Sanwidi, it is not for the Tribunal to review the wisdom of the USG/DGACM¡¯s decision among other all viable options, but rather to assess the legality by which the decision was reached. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the decision to transfer the Applicant was not ¡°arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors¡± with reference to Chemingui, or that ¡°relevant matters [were] ignored and irrelevant matters considered¡± or the decision was ¡°absurd or perverse¡± as per Sanwidi. By itself, the Tribunal therefore finds no issue in the transfer decision...

The first contested decision ¨C the ICSC refusal to address the Applicant¡¯s request for payment of compensation for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the ISCS Chair is moot because the current Chair of the ICSC eventually responded to the Applicant¡¯s request. The Chair of the ICSC is not staff of the Secretariat and therefore falls outside the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5, or the Staff Regulations and Rules. The ICSC decision not to compensate the Applicant for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the former Chair (second contested decision) is not attributable to the Secretary...

The Applicant¡¯s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client¡¯s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely...

These positions to which the Applicant applied required specialized work experience which the Applicant did not have. The Administration reasonably concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum work experience required for these respective positions. Potential vacant posts likely to be created by an upcoming restructuring plan are not considered available posts. The Administration lawfully did not consider the Applicant for any potential vacant post. The Administration reviewed the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the positions he applied for and lawfully determined that he did not meet the...

The challenged decision was not the termination but a mere notice that the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment may be terminated if he failed to secure a new position and rejected the agreed separation proposed. Accordingly, the contested administrative decision did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision in the sense of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed due to her own requests to leave prior to the end of her four-year rotation in that position. The record shows that the Applicant was well aware of the reasons for the non-renewal of her position and would have understood the contents of the notification letter related directly to her requests to Director and Deputy Director to leave her position. The record clearly demonstrates that the Applicant¡¯s post was advertised due to her request to leave UNDP Guyana prior to the end of her four-year rotation. The Applicant cites no impropriety in the...

Receivability The Tribunal found that the second communication from the ABCC, not the first communication, constituted the notification of the contested decision since it clearly indicated that the ABCC reviewed the Applicant¡¯s additional requests and rejected them. The Tribunal found that subsequent communications between the ABCC and the Applicant did not reset the statutory deadline as they were the reiteration of the contested decision. The application was timely filed and receivable. The claim of negligence was already adjudicated in the earlier judgment and therefore is not receivable as...

The Applicant¡¯s claims of ulterior motive are unsubstantiated. The preferential consideration of female candidates only applies when women are under-represented according to sec. 3(c) of the memorandum from the Secretary-General of 11 February 2019 on the implementation of ST/AI/1999/9 (Special measures for the achievement of gender equality). The evidence shows, however, that women are not under-represented in the relevant unit. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to preferential consideration due to her gender. The Administration has shown that the applicable procedure was followed...

The Applicant had a contractual right to be recruited as the Respondent provided no reason whatsoever for not doing so after having issued an offer of appointment.

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination ¡°on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners¡±. The scope of the ABCC¡¯s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above).; As convincingly explained by the Applicant¡¯s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it¡ªPTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination ¡°on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners¡±. The scope of the ABCC¡¯s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above). As convincingly explained by the Applicant¡¯s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it¡ªPTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant¡¯s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal¡¯s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration¡¯s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

The Applicant failed to abide by several orders and did not respond to attempts from the Registry to contact him. Ther Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Any changes to the Applicant¡¯s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office¡¯s work. The Applicant¡¯s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The Administration informed the Applicant that ¡°it will issue an administrative reprimand¡±. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct ¡°with the interests of the United Nations only in view¡± and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with UNICEF before expressing her personal views, that...