51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The UNDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-UNAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

Appeals against Ethics Office: The United Nations Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...

Compensation for delayed placement on roster of pre-approved candidates: Although the Applicant was not selected for the post, the delay in the selection exercise had a direct impact on him because, had this exercise been finished sooner, the Applicant would have been placed on the roster of pre-approved candidates earlier, which would have opened up additional employment opportunities that would have been available to him as a roster candidate. The UNDT found that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration in the selection process. However, the UNDT found that the selection exercise...

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found no evidence of an express promise in writing sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. The Tribunal also found that the reason given for the decision was sufficiently supported by the weight of the credible evidence. The Applicant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.