51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member¡¯s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...

Submissions on new issues after the trial, re-opening of litigation: Parties will not be permitted to re-open substantive litigation after the Tribunal has already rendered its judgment on liability and is dealing solely with the issue of compensation.The Tribunal will take into account the staff member¡¯s earnings during the relevant period of time for the purpose of calculating compensation.Interest for lost salary: Lost salary should be subject to interest on the basis that it would have been paid in separate monthly installments, with interest on each installment calculated in accordance...

It was common cause that the Applicant had committed misconduct by submitting falsified information to an outside public entity (New York City Housing Development Corporation), including a forged letter from another United Nations staff member, in order to qualify for a subsidized apartment. The only legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s actions amounted to serious misconduct and that it was reasonable for the Respondent to conclude that the...

The Tribunal found that there could not be an absolute and general rule that the failure to give reasons amounts to an unlawful exercise of the discretion not to renew. Nor should there be a rule that reasons should never be given. Having found that the decision was not prima facie illegal, the requirements provided for in Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure to grant suspension of action were not met.Outcome: the application was dismissed.

UNDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to UNDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. UNDT rejected the application.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.