51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s case was limited to the amount of adequate compensation for the failure to adequately and timeously consider his complaint and that his other claims, including with respect to the termination of his appointment, were not properly before it. UNDT found that the Administration was required¡ªbut failed¡ªto undertake an adequate and timeous initial inquiry into the applicant¡¯s allegations. UNDT found that the applicant substantiated his claims of emotional distress and injury and must be compensated for it. However, UNDT found that the applicant failed to show that...

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all UN staff members were to be ¡°considered first¡±, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a UN staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant¡¯s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

The appeal is withdrawn and the case is closed.

Since it was ECOWAS and not UNSD that took the decision not to attribute the applicant for her contributions to the ECOWAS Poverty Profile, this decision is therefore not a decision in respect of which the respondent, ie, the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Office of the United Nations, has any responsibility. Even if the ultimate decision to exclude the applicant from attribution was that of ECOWAS, it could, nevertheless, be held that the administrative decision in question was that UNSD decided to accept the decision of ECOWAS in respect of the applicant, contrary to its...

Compensation: The elements of Applicant¡¯s compensation were: applicable salary, plus post adjustment, less staff assessment, less pension contribution made by Applicant, less amounts paid to Applicant on separation, less mitigation damages earned by Applicant, plus accrued vacation, plus personal distress award of USD4,000, plus e-PAS violation of USD6,000. Pension: Since, based on the facts from Beaudry UNDT/2010/039, it was unlikely that the Applicant would have had her contract renewed until her retirement, the Applicant would not have qualified for any retirement benefits, including...

When the Applicant filled his PT8 form, he claimed daily subsistence allowance (DSA) for the period he would spend in Geneva for training purposes when he was fully aware that he was proceeding there to meet with an NGO or to have consultations with colleagues at HQ. As the purpose of his travel had changed he used funds earmarked for training for a different purpose without obtaining prior written authorisation. There was a note on his PT8 form that during January, the Applicant was on leave but this was not sufficient to absolve him. He received DSA for the period he was away from the...

The Tribunal is entitled to examine the entire case before it. In other words, the Tribunal may consider not only the administrative decision of the Secretary-General imposing disciplinary measures but also examine the material placed before him on which he bases his decision in addition to other facts relevant to the said material. The rush by the investigators to produce a prejudiced report dripping with innuendos, riddled with ridiculous findings and which completely and unjustly tars the Applicant with a brush of criminality must be loudly condemned by this Tribunal.

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.

UNDT found that the Applicant, requested on two occasions to make the necessary corrections to her application, had failed to do so. UNDT dismissed the application finding that the Applicant is no longer interested in pursuing her case.