51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT agreed with the UNDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. UNAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of UNDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the UNDT is not receivable. UNAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

UNAT was not able to detect any errors in the UNDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of UNAT.

UNDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got¡¯s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. UNAT held that UNDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and UNOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

Regarding Contested Decision #1, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, UNAT also agreed with UNDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, UNAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, UNAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

UNAT disagreed with UNRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. UNAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. UNAT found no error in UNDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The filing of the incomplete statement of appeal by 31 July 2008 complied with the time limit specified by the Staff Rules. The failure to file the full statement of appeal within one month (as was required by the JAB rules) may (not must) lead to implied abandonment in the absence of explanation and permits restoration of the appeal if an adequate explanation is provided; this does not require exceptional circumstances. The delay was explained by the need to obtain the investigative report and its annexures lying at the centre of the case. What constitutes an adequate explanation will vary...

The time for requesting an administrative review runs from the date the administrative decision was received by the staff member. The respondent¡¯s refusal to fulfill the three requests of the applicant resulted in three administrative decisions. Even though these decisions were connected to the letter of reprimand they did not reiterate matters contained in the letter of reprimand and they were motivated by events subsequent to that letter.Outcome: The applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was brought in time and his appeal against the outcome of that review is receivable.