��ż���

Following a restructuring of his branch, the Applicant, a UNOV/UNODC staff member, was reassigned, at the same level, to the newly created position of Senior Legal Adviser. The UNOV Administration then proceeded to classify his position. This process culminated in the issuance of a classification notice on 15 March 2011. The Applicant challenges the classification decision, as well as the decision of his first reporting officer to use terms of reference which, he says, were not the ones used to classify his position, with a view to appraising his 2010-2011 performance. Concerning the first decision, the Tribunal finds that, whilst UNOV had received in 1995 a delegation of authority from Headquarters to classify posts in the Professional category, the validity of such delegation was limited to one year. It therefore considers that, at the material time, there existed no valid delegation of authority, and it rescinds the classification decision on this ground. Subsidiarily, the Tribunal notes first that the fact that the Administration proceeded to “classify” generic job profiles before it classified individual posts does not accord with the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9. Second, in view of the dates of the classification request and terms of reference used for the classification exercise, the classification of the post of Senior Legal Adviser could not have become effective as early as 1 April 2010. Concerning the second decision, the Tribunal finds that the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member’s performance appraisal does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the Statute. It also dismisses the Applicant’s contention on the merits. Though the Tribunal considers that the classification decision was tainted by lack of authority, it rejects the Applicant’s claim for compensation given that he did not produce evidence of the damage, if any, suffered by him as a result of this flaw.