����AV

UNDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG’s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. UNDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ ultimate selection decision...

Under art. 16(3) of the ICTR Statute, the Registrar of the ICTR is an Assistant Secretary-General. In his position as head of administration, he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Secretary-General in relation to the administration and operations of the ICTR. It was the Tribunal’s finding that the Applicant had addressed his request for an administrative review to the ICTR Registrar, who was the person with the power to either review it on behalf of the Secretary-General or to forward it to the appropriate officer, within the applicable time limits. The Applicant had in...

The timely rescission of the publication of the Letter negated any potential harm or breach of the Applicant’s rights that may have occurred in the present case.; The Administration took the implicit decision of not providing the Applicant with his requested remedy to the publication of the Letter.; For the Tribunal to grant the Applicant unfettered access to iSeek for the; purpose of publishing a rebuttal letter without having it reviewed by the iSeek team to make sure that it conforms with its publishing guidelines would be akin to the Tribunal ordering a potential breach of the iSeek...

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent’s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that at least 78 candidates had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process and no procedural irregularity with an impact on her status as well as a probability for promotion...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

An appeal to an internal review panel established for such purpose did not amount to a written request for management evaluation addressed to the Secretary-General.

MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU—which missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.