�山����

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant’s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant’s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant’s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican’s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that “a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis” (see Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...