51ÁÔÆæ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3¡ªin particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III¡ªthat applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The UNDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

The application for suspension of action was dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant.

The UNDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the UNDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The UNDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The UNDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

This application for suspension of action is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that the application was irreceivable as time-barred; it was also without merit because the alleged conflict of interest was not deemed to exist. Independent status: Bodies endowed with an independent status are integrated in the structure of the Organization and, whilst they may not receive instructions from their chain of command in performing the tasks entrusted to them, they are not entirely detached from the Secretary-General¡¯s authority. Administrative decisions: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of acts other than administrative decisions. Redress...

Having examined the documents and having heard the evidence from the PCO of the selection panel, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no material irregularity in that all relevant procedures and guidelines were followed. The JAB panel¡¯s examination of the facts is not tainted by procedural error or bias. The application before this Tribunal fails and is dismissed.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the parties reached an amicable resolution.

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-UNAT-049 and Syed 2010-UNAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-UNAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs¡¯ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The Tribunal held that the presence of bad faith in some of the Respondent¡¯s actions concerning the Applicant stood out in bold relief. There was no doubt that the bad blood between the Applicant and her immediate supervisor created a ripple effect and alienated her from the Chief of ICTS. The testimony on why and how the recruitment process for VA 421846 had to be overhauled clearly reflected a blatant manipulation of the selection process set out in ST/AI/2006/3; a subversion and clear breach of United Nations Staff Rules. The Applicant did not make out a case with regard to her allegations...

The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB¡¯s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...