51ÁÔÆæ

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision¡¯s purview and, therefore...

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant¡¯s fixed-term...

With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.

Receivability: A decision which does not merely confirm a previous decision, but shows that in the meantime, efforts have been made by the Administration to find an alternative arrangement and sets a new deadline, may be considered as a new decision, which has the effect of setting a new time limit for requesting administrative review. In accordance with article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute, the three-year time limit cannot be extended, even in exceptional cases within the meaning of article 8.3 of the Statute. The Dispute Tribunal is not competent to hear the case under article 2.7 (transitional...

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly¡¯s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.

In general, there is no right to renewal of appointment for staff members serving on a temporary appointment. In the case at hand, no improper motives neither countervailing circumstances existed which may have tainted the contested decision with illegality. The reasons for that decision - no budgeted or approved posts of Language Assistant, Interpreter or Translator at his level in UNAMI, abolislnnent of the post - are acceptable. Although the Organization was not obliged to find alternative employment for the applicant as a staff member holding a temporary appointment, a bona fide effort was...

In view of the informal resolution of the dispute, the application was withdrawn.

¡°[...]if the respondent fails to follow proper procedures, and even if the decision is subsequently withdrawn, the applicant may be entitled to compensation, for the violation of his due process rights at the time the decision in question was taken. Therefore, the question of compensation must be dealt with separately from the fact that the contested decision was withdrawn.¡± ¡°The Administration¡¯s failure to pursue one of the options under Section 9 of ST/AI/371, to put the case on hold and to keep the applicant, who had been charged with misconduct, in a limbo and to issue the Note for File...

The Tribunal found that the evidence adduced by the respondent did not sufficiently support the charge that the applicant had not paid for three tickets issued to him by MCM and that, accordingly, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt in respect of this charge. About the applicant¡¯s unauthorized absences from the mission area, the Tribunal held that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, a dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and that a written censure would be an appropriate measure. The Tribunal found that the applicant¡¯s due process rights had...

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate¡¯s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s competence to substitute the Administration¡¯s decision to select between suitable candidates.

[UNDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...

[Case UNDT/GVA/2009/33] The APPC omission to inform the applicant that his supervisor had sent a letter to it concerning his employment and to share its content with him does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. It thus falls out of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the UNDT. The decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s contract was already taken at that point. Hence, the letter to the APPC was merely internal communication; at the highest, it could be regarded as one step in a complexe procedure. [Case UNDT/GVA/2009/40] The...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Since he remained a WFP staff member and pursuant to the above-mentioned Inter-Organization Agreement, the applicant never had a contractual relationship with UNAMID. Only WFP was in a position to render decisions that could affect his terms of appointment. Two decisions were at stake. With respect to the first (WFP decision not to treat him as a D-1), his case could not be heard before UNDT because WFP has recognised ILOAT as judicial review body. Concerning the second (UNAMID decision not to appoint him as Deputy Director), the applicant is not a ¡°staff member¡± within the meaning of art. 3...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant after the parties reached an agreement.

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...