51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the recruitment of UNLB GS local staff, because UNLB is not an ¡°established mission¡± and, therefore, does not fall within their remit; additionally, the Guidelines were never duly issued at ULNB. In fact, given that UNLB is not a peacekeeping operation or a special political mission, GS staff recruitments are covered by ST/AI/2010/3 and do not fall, as argued by the Respondent, in a lacuna of law,. The Tribunal further found that the time-in-grade requirements were abolished long ago and are contrary to norms of superior legal...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant¡¯s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was ¡°outstanding¡± at teamwork.

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

The UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration¡¯s inaction.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice¡­it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary¡¯s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-UNAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation 51ÁÔÆæ Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/017. UNAT noted that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. UNAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that UNDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. UNAT held that it disagreed with UNDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before UNDT. UNAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

UNAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. UNAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the UNDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether UNDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, UNAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, UNDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, UNDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deeming the...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...