51ÁÔÆæ

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at UNON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

UNICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a UNICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, UNICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., UNICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with UNICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to UNICEF service after...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

The Applicant, a former P-3 level staff member of MINUSTAH, sought rescission of the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract. The Respondent asserted that non-renewal was lawful since the Applicant was provisionally reassigned to MINUSTAH when MINURCAT was downsized and his provisional reassignment was contingent upon him receiving FCRB clearance. As the Applicant never received FCRB clearance, his contract was not renewed. The UNDT found that, following his initial offer, the Applicant received 12 subsequent letters of appointment which did not expressly or by reference refer to him...

The Tribunal granted the application in part as the reasons provided for the Applicant¡¯s termination, notably end of appointment and abolition of post, were incorrect and therefore unlawful (the decision was rather based on the Applicant¡¯s health). As relief, the Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s request for pecuniary compensation consisting in net-base salary from her separation date and until her retirement and ordered that the Applicant should also receive compensation in the amount equal to the contributions (staff member¡¯s and the Organization¡¯s) that would have been paid to the United...