51ÁÔÆæ

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 ¨C June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.

The Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was rescinded promptly after its issuance. In fact, the main claim of the application was rendered moot even before the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Applicant¡¯s claim for damages based upon an allegation that his property was destroyed and that his private safety deposit box containing USD21,000 in cash was lost was found irreceivable. The Applicant did not include this claim in his application. The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable regarding the claim for reimbursement of the cost of security services from November 2014 till May 2015. That claim did not expressly form part of the application or the management evaluation request. The claim for damages equalling USD150,000 for ¡°subsistence while stranded in Uganda...

The Tribunal held that the Application was moot and irreceivable. The Tribunal observed that it had acquired ex officio knowledge that the Applicant had been separated from service on the grounds of abandonment of post. The Tribunal acquired this knowledge from Case No. UNDT/NBI/2018/105 that was also filed by the Applicant. In the circumstance, the Applicant was no longer a staff member and her request to be transferred to a duty station where the supply of electricity was stable or to grant her an agreed termination of the appointment had been overtaken by subsequent events rendering the...

UNDT noted that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that an alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When termination is a possible outcome, misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Is not the role of the UNDT to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and place itself in the shoes of the decision-maker. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant partook in the misappropriation of the material, which belonged to the...