The Tribunal found that the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9 did not allow the reclassification of the Applicant’s post and concluded accordingly that the Applicant had no grounds for contesting the refusal to reclassify his post. The Tribunal further found that the Administration’s delays in notifying the Applicant of the reclassification decision, even though the decision was well-founded, had caused him to suffer moral damage, for which the Tribunal awarded EUR2,000.
The Tribunal finds that the Administration erred in considering that no classification decision had been taken. It further finds that the Applicant duly followed the procedure foreseen in ST/AI/1998/9 and that she was deprived of her right to a remedy. Turning to the question whether such breach resulted in loss of a chance to have her post classified at the P-4 level, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not shown that she suffered any actual material harm, given the uncertainty surrounding a possible approval of the new budgetary post by OPPBA and the General Assembly. However, it...
Receivability – Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal’s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.
Standard of review for interpretation (1): A request for interpretation of a judgment is receivable only if the operative part of it gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or import.Standard of review for interpretation (2): It would be contrary to the letter and spirit of article 12.3 of the Tribunal’s Statute to seek a reversal or modification of a final judgment under cover of interpretation. The correctness of a judgment is not a matter to be dealt with in this framework, as interpreting, by definition, means shedding light on the original meaning, as opposed to altering...
The Tribunal found that most of the Applicant’s claims were time barred and that those which were not time barred were without merit. It was found that UNON had paid the Applicant’s SPA for the periods when he was entitled to it and that he no longer had any legitimate claims for SPA against UNON. Employment Contract: A contract of employment is personal between the employee in each case and the employer. The terms of one’s employment as stipulated in the letter of appointment or contract of employment is binding in personam between staff member and the organization and one cannot seek to...
The post of Director of Human Rights in UNMISS was not a reclassification of the D-1 post held by the Applicant at UNMIS but a new post created to meet the need of UNMISS. It was classified as D-2 and the post held by the Applicant ceased to exist upon its abolition.; Given the importence of the Human Rights function in the new State, a D-2 post was justified. This was done in an objective manner having regard to the Secretary Council Resolution that governed the transition.; The evidence established that the consideration of the post of the Chief of Human Rights was done in conjunction with...
Classification - There is no evidence that the procedure for a re-classification of the Broadcast Technology Officer (“BTO”) post encumbered by the Applicant in UNMIS was ever undertaken. As already pointed out, the Chief of radio took it upon herself to re-write the competencies of the post to which in January 2010, the Applicant had been competitively recruited before she came on board as Chief of radio, perhaps in order to make the Applicant who was encumbering the post, less eligible.
Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority...
Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he...
The UNDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.
The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...
With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants’ post at the S-3 level, the UNDT found that the Applicants’ claims regarding the Administration’s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case—including oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents—the Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the UNDT found that the Administration’s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants’ posts at the S-3 level was...
