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 (“UNAMIDâ€)] 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 did not prove that any exceptional circumstance beyond her control prevented her from filing the application on time. The Applicant’s request for anonymity is granted to ensure the protection of the medical information discussed in the case. Related
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.
No evidence showed a link between the Applicant having expressed divergent views on a work-related matter and the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. The decision not to extend the fixed-term appointment was based on operational requirements and followed the Security Council’s decision to withdraw MINUJUSTH. The Applicant had no expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment. No evidence showed that MINJUSTH made a written promise to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. There is no legal provision directing the Administration to find placement for staff members at...
The job description for the position under review contained the same requirements as those agreed for the other services. There was therefore no evidence of ulterior motive in the design of the job description. The position was among those newly created following the reorganization of the concerned Division. While the Applicant disagreed with the way the restructuring was conducted, he was unable to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion. The Applicant failed the test which was eliminatory, therefore, his score at the interview was not taken into consideration. The written...
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...
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...
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 – 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...
