51ÁÔÆæ

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

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration¡¯s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.

Turning to Mr. Musambai¡¯s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member¡¯s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The UNAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The UNAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the UNDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the UNDT.

The UNDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the UNDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The UNAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...

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...