�山����

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had erred in giving to the Applicant an appointment whose expiration date went well beyond his retirement age but that it duly rectified this error by separating him from service. It also found that the Applicant had been sufficiently compensated by the Respondent. Nature of contractual relationship: The contracts by which the Organization employs staff members are not regular contracts, given the particular relationship established between staff members and the Organization, and they are for the most part governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

Administration’s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal’s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...