¹ú²úAV

1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant’s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant’s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

The Tribunal does not sit as an expert review body on the classification of posts. The Tribunal has the power and a duty to consider whether the Committee acted unfairly or in anyway improperly or whether there was any failure, omission or deliberate failure by the ASG to give effect to the substance of the report and recommendations of the Committee. If there is no evidence of this, the Tribunal will not overturn a decision of the Committee. Where the applicant raises general complaints of unfairness and denial of due process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient detail...

In declaring the Applicant’s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration’s failure to take action on the Applicant’s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

The Administration, on three separate occasions in 2000, determined that his post would remain classifiable at the P-3 level. In 2006, the Applicant made another request to have his post reclassified and a desk audit of the post was performed under ST/AI/1998/9, but the post remained classified at the P-3 level. The Applicant contended that the Respondent failed to comply with the established procedures as set out in ST/AI/1998/9, including that the Applicant was not provided with available documentation to justify the decisions and that this effectively deprived him from filing a meaningful...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member’s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member’s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

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...