51ÁÔÆæ

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed 51ÁÔÆæ the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment of limited duration carried no expectancy of renewal and that there were no countervailing circumstances which could have created such expectancy. It also found that the reason for non-renewal, namely the negative impact that allegations then made against the Applicant in the local media could have on the Organization, was supported by the facts and that the non-renewal decision therefore constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion. Scope of discretion of the Secretary-General in non-renewal cases: It is within the...

The Applicant made good faith efforts 51ÁÔÆæ his financial disclosure obligations for 2005. The Secretary-General failed to take into account the various mitigating factors in favour of the Applicant when determining the sanction against him. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was far more excessive than was necessary for obtaining the desired purposes of the financial disclosure program. The appropriate disciplinary measure in the present case should be a reprimand.

UNDT held that, in light of Order No. 62 (NY/2010) and the subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there was no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. UNDT closed the case without a determination of its merits.

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

In accordance with staff rule 7.6(e), the Applicant¡¯s official departure date from Vienna was on Sunday, 14 March 2010, a non-working day in Vienna. Pursuant to section 5.2 of ST/AI/2006/4, had he departed on that date, he would not have been entitled to an additional day of annual leave to compensate for official travel on a non-working day. The fact that the Applicant chose to travel on a working day for reasons of personal convenience shall not have the effect of granting him a benefit to which he would not have been entitled had he travelled on the official date of travel.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

UNDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. UNDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.