51ÁÔÆæ

The decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment is often closely linked to the Organization¡¯s broader discretion on how to organize its services. In that respect, the Tribunal notes that in times of scare resources, managers bear particular responsibilities for making sound management decisions, which implies making an assessment of services needed at a given time in a given department, and to avoid to unnecessary expenditure of public money with which they are effectively entrusted. Any post facto assessment of these matters is only relevant to the extent that it is able to demonstrate...

Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

UNDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

Since the receivability of an application is a question of law, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make use of art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, and to decide on the application by way of summary judgment, without transmitting it to the Respondent. Upon taking up her functions as a Programme Management Officer at UNFCCC on 8 November 2012, the Applicant knew about her step in grade, as per her offer of appointment of 24 September 2012. Since the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation against the determination of her step upon recruitment with UNFCCC four years...

The failure to consider the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports and to address them especially in the context of the disparity between its ratings and those of the Applicant¡¯s reporting officers on the same competencies and within the same organization was a serious flaw in the selection process. UNDT was satisfied that the panel met its requirement of asking probing questions, even if the report reflected it as ¡°prompting¡± rather than ¡°probing.¡± The absence of an ex-officio member on the assessment/interview panel by itself could not vitiate the selection exercise. The Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the...

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the UNDP Administrator due to...

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the UNDT Statute and article 30 of the UNDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; UNDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

The Applicant was informed of the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew her appointment on 13 May 2015 thus the time to challenge this decision started to run from this date. The Applicant requested management evaluation on 28 August 2015.; A later notice to the Applicant on 30 June 2015 merely affirmed that the earlier decision remained in force.; The application was late in light of staff rule 11.2(c), as it was filed past the sixty-day time limit, and not receivable. UNDT dismissed the application.

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant¡¯s property. In particular, there was no requirement...

No legal implementation of an expired decision: The Tribunal underlines that, after its expiration a decision cannot any longer produce legal effects and therefore cannot be implemented and / or extended and that any such action constitutes itself a breach of procedural fairness.