51ÁÔÆæ

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

The statement of the Executive Director is not an administrative decision that can be contested before UNDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. It is not an administrative decision within the meaning of the ruling in Andronov by the former UNAT. Indeed, the applicant did not contest the non-renewal of his appointment but a statement by the Executive Director. This statement is a simple opinion, not an administrative decision that could have affected the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. By the time the statement was published, the applicant was already aware of the non-renewal of his...

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before UNDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former UNAT and the recent jurisprudence of the UNDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

[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...

[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...

Since the applicant was not a staff member of UNOV when the contested decision was taken, the decision to bar him from access to the VIC did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The decision could be contested neither before the JAB nor before the UNDT.

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...

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...

According to the available record, the applicant never received a letter of appointment and no such letter was ever signed by an authorized official. He did not, therefore, become a staff member of the United Nations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the UNDT Statute. It follows that the applicant has no access to the system of administration of justice in its present state. It is noted that the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to investigate the option of granting access to non-staff personnel. Outcome: the application was rejected.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal: Although the Administration released the moneys to the applicant, when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is properly engaged, the mere fact that the Administration ¡°corrects¡± the decision in question does not end the matter. The applicant is still entitled to seek a determination that the decision is unlawful and an award of compensation. Legality of withholding entitlements: The test is not guilt of the staff member but merely ¡°reason to believe¡± that they may have been grossly negligent, causing loss. This is an undemanding test, amongst other things satisfied even...