51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. UNAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. UNAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT set out the correct legal framework, but thereafter erroneously reviewed the evidence and interfered with the administrative discretion, since UNRWA had established the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in its evaluation of the evidence and that UNRWA had established the existence of the facts warranting disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that the procedure and the subsequent decision were lawful and there was no basis to rescind the termination or to award any...

UNAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, UNAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. UNAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the UNAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. UNAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it applied UNICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by UNICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. UNAT held that UNDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

UNAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, UNAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-531, as UNAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist UNAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. With respect to the application of Section 1. 8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9 to Ms Xie, UNAT clarified that the requirement, that the Hiring Manager must submit a written analysis indicating how the qualifications and experience of the recommended candidate are ¡°clearly¡± superior to those of female candidates who were not recommended, refers to the final stage of the selection process, i. e. it is when making his or her final recommendation for the selection of a male candidate over a female candidate, to the head of department/office, authorized to...

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mr. Y., no complaint was ever received by OAIS, and that, hence, the application before the Tribunal was not receivable on that matter as no contestable administrative decision was ever taken with respect to Mr. Y. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s second colleague, Mrs. X., the Tribunal found that an email the Applicant had sent to an UNFPA Human Resources Associate in August 2013 did not meet the formal requirements of a complaint, as it was not addressed to OAIS pursuant to UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (...

The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to OHRM¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant¡¯s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...

Receivability - The arguments that this Application is not receivable were premised on the provisions of section 5 of ST/AI/1998/9 which is the legislation governing the policies and procedures for the classification and reclassification of posts. In the instant case, there was no attempt or effort made to reclassify the Applicant¡¯s post. The Respondent¡¯s preliminary objection that this Application is not receivable is therefore irrelevant and accordingly dismissed. Admissibility of evidence ¨C In considering the Respondent¡¯s prayer with regard to the admissibility of Annex 13, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that the Administration, which acknowledged its mistake, was entitled and bound to recover the money that had been paid to the Applicant in excess of his entitlements as a result, albeit limited to the period of two years provided for in sec. 3.1 of ST/AI/2009/1. The application was dismissed.

Home leave: The Tribunal concluded that there is nothing in staff rule 5.2 which indicates that the extension or the duration of the extension of a contract of employment is to be decided along with the sick leave entitlements of a staff member. Extension and sick leave cannot be merged to motivate a decision on whether to extend a contract or not. The entitlement to home leave is premised on 12 months service at a designated duty station with the sole condition that the service of the staff member is expected to continue at least three months after the staff member returns to the duty station...

Selection processes and job openingsThe Tribunal appreciates that the selection process for a post starts with the creation of a job opening (sec. 3.1 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual) and ends when the Head of the Office/Department makes the selection decision (sec. 14.3.7 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual). A new job opening represents the beginning of a new selection process and cannot be created and or viewed as a continuation of a previous selection process that has been initiated by the publication of the first job opening for the same post. Composition of assessment panelThe Tribunal notes...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

The UNDT reviewed the procedure followed by the ASG/OHRM to reach her decision to close the complaint, and found that although the Chief, JMS, did not follow the correct procedure of consulting with the UN Medical Director about the request for the Applicant not to attend work, it was open to the ASG/OHRM to conclude that the conduct of the Chief, JMS, did not warrant any disciplinary or administrative action. Indeed, the Tribunal considered that the Chief, JMS, faced a complex situation, which included the Applicant¡¯s illness and the potential for disrupting patients of the JMS clinic. The...