51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant¡¯s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was ¡°outstanding¡± at teamwork.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mr. Y., no complaint was ever received by OAIS, and that, hence, the application before the Tribunal was not receivable on that matter as no contestable administrative decision was ever taken with respect to Mr. Y. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s second colleague, Mrs. X., the Tribunal found that an email the Applicant had sent to an UNFPA Human Resources Associate in August 2013 did not meet the formal requirements of a complaint, as it was not addressed to OAIS pursuant to UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (...

The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...