51ÁÔÆæ

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent¡¯s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...

The Applicant¡¯s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant¡¯s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant¡¯s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office¡¯s recommendation only required that ¡°efforts be made¡±, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...

The Applicant remains on special leave with full pay at the time of the judgment. The decision to terminate his appointment remains suspended and has no impact on his terms of appointment, the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The management evaluation rescinds the 25 September 2019 decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint of abuse of authority. Therefore, in application of Crotty, the Applicant¡¯s request for an order directing UNICEF 51ÁÔÆæ its obligations with respect to the complaint is not receivable. The Tribunal notes that as the 25 September 2019 decision was rescinded, further actions or inactions taken following the 7 November 2019 decision constitute fresh administrative decisions, actual or implied. Therefore, in application of art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Applicant must...

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

The application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.

Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...