ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The Tribunal found that the intervention of the head of department in the appointment of the selection panel constituted a procedural flaw in the selection process. Since the Applicant had not requested the rescission of the contested decision but only compensation, the Tribunal examined whether such irregularity had caused any damage to the Applicant. It found that the latter, who had been proposed for the post, had failed to establish any causal link between the procedural flaw in the selection process and his non-selection. Selection panel: Although ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 is silent on the...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration’s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant’s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant’s supervisors’ assessment...

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant’s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant’s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment due to his poor performance...

Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...

The Tribunal found that ST/AI/292 had been complied with, in particular paragraph 2 which provides that adverse material may not be included in the personnel file unless it has been shown to the staff member concerned and the staff member has been given an opportunity to make comments thereon. The Administration not only can but must place in a staff member’s personnel file all documents related to his/her service, provided the provisions of ST/AI/292 have been complied with.

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had erred in giving to the Applicant an appointment whose expiration date went well beyond his retirement age but that it duly rectified this error by separating him from service. It also found that the Applicant had been sufficiently compensated by the Respondent. Nature of contractual relationship: The contracts by which the Organization employs staff members are not regular contracts, given the particular relationship established between staff members and the Organization, and they are for the most part governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable ratione temporis but rejected it on the merits, on the ground that the post whose functions the Applicant carried out was not vacant or temporarily vacant within the meaning of ST/AI/1999/17. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant’s request for moral damages. Receivability ratione temporis: The serious health problem suffered by the Applicant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay in filing his application. The short period of time between the end of his sick leave and the filing of his application shows that the...

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3—in particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III—that applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...