51�Թ�

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). UNAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. UNAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. UNAT noted that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

The Appellant sought reversal of the UNDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined to receive the Appellant’s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before UNDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, UNAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. UNAT held that knowledge of the...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration’s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that the administration is entitled not to renew the FTA of a staff member whose performance was rated “does not meet performance expectations”, on the mere grounds of the staff member’s bad performance. It further results from ST/AI/2002/3 that in case the staff member’s performance was rated “partially meets performance expectations”, the administration is obliged to apply measures which allow the staff member to improve his/her performance, before it can decide on the non-renewal of the staff member’s FTA on the basis of bad performance. In the present case, the...

Were the rules followed correctly to assess the relevant professional experience of the Applicant for the advertised JO? The standards and principles in ST/AI/2010/3 governing the selection of international staff, to some extent, apply by reference to the recruitment for NPO posts. Authority to assess candidates’ eligibility In her capacity as CCPO of UNFICYP, Ms. Kaddoura was entitled to verify whether the candidates for the Position met the minimum requirements specified in the JO. She was also bound to correct any errors discovered in the process. Application of the JO requirements The...

The Tribunal found that determining that the Applicant did not meet the minimum professional relevant experience for the Position was in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, and based on a reasonable and plausible approach. It also concluded that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation to be the successful candidate with regard to that selection process, even if he had been initially considered eligible, allowed to take the written test and underwent the competency-based interview.