51ÁÔÆæ

• The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
• The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal denied the Motion as irreceivable and rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for an extension of time to file his substantive application.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member¡¯s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The UNAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the UNAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The UNAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable. In this regard, the UNAT first rejected his contention...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The UNAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...