����AV

Since the Applicant withrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the cases are closed.

The Applicant’s appeal against her own selection for the TJO is not receivable because it is time-barred under staff rule 11.2(c). As no reasonable remedy would be available for the Tribunal to rectify the situation to the relevant applicant’s advantage, the appeal would only be of speculative interest. In the present case, the Applicant basically appeals against herself being selected for and appointed to a job, which is evidently an administrative decision to her advantage. Consequently, the Applicant’s appeal of the decision to recruit her against the TJO is not receivable as it does not...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

The Applicant’s appointment was not renewed due to the reclassification of her post from G-4 to G-6 level, and there was a legitimate reason for the reclassification, and thus abolishment of the Applicant’s post. The Applicant has not met her burden of proving that the contested decision was biased or was motivated by other improper purposes. There was insufficient evidence that the Administration made a firm commitment or express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. The Applicant having provided no evidence of any harm, there is no basis for an award for moral damages.

The Applicant remains on special leave with full pay at the time of the judgment. The decision to terminate his appointment remains suspended and has no impact on his terms of appointment, the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant’s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

Since the Applicant remains on special leave with full pay pending management evaluation at the time of the judgment, the termination decision remains suspended and has not yielded effects on the Applicant’s terms of appointment. The application is therefore not receivable. The action or inaction of the Administration to find an alternative post for the Applicant after he was first placed on special leave with full pay is not receivable because the Applicant did not include this ground in his request for management evaluation.

The email identified by the Applicant as the contested administrative decision does not constitute a fresh decision but a mere restatement of a previous email. It therefore cannot be considered to produce consequences on the legal order and is therefore not a challengeable administrative decision. The Applicant failed to contest the assignment of her current functions when notified to her. Therefore, the Applicant would be barred from contesting at this point that such assignment was in non-compliance with her contractual rights or conditions of employment.

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

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 (“UNAMID”)] 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.