51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal concluded that: (a) the selection process for the post of D/ACGSD was not handled correctly and lawfully due to apparent bias on the part of the ASP and that he suffered prejudice/damage as a result; and (b) the Applicant was not the victim of harassment and discrimination in relation to this case. Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. The Tribunal concluded that the Advisory Selection Panel (ASP) in the present...

The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an ¡°administrative decision¡± under the provisions of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an ¡°administrative decision¡±, because it does not produce ¡°direct legal consequences¡±. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...

The Respondent objected to the receivability of the application. The UNDT found the case receivable and directed the parties to attempt informal resolution of the matter.

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The UNDT found that the candidates¡¯ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The UNDT found the Applicant¡¯s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to request the Administration to open a new TVA, and as such to provoke an administrative decision of refusal, the application was irreceivable in this respect. The Tribunal further found that the decision to select another candidate was procedurally flawed since the Applicant, despite her request, was not provided with the names of the members of the Interview Panel. In view of the case history, there is no doubt that the Applicant would have requested a change of Panel members and a reasonable Administrator would have conceded to her request...

A judgment on receivability is not an executable judgment. It is not a judgment on the merits of the case where all issues have been adjudicated upon. An executable judgment is one in which the court determines on the substantive issues of the case having heard and deliberated on the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. In so doing, it ends the dispute before the court which heard it. A judgment on receivability is based on a procedural issue. In the present case, the procedural issue had to do with the timeliness of the application and scope of the court¡¯s jurisdiction where the...