51ÁÔÆæ

This application does not meet the requirements of art. 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and art. 30 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. There is no need to clarify the meaning of Judgment Ocokoru UNDT/2015/004 since it was fully implemented years ago. Furthermore, the grounds submitted by the Applicant as a basis for interpretation have already been clearly and unambiguously determined by this Tribunal previously. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is challenging an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or his contract of employment and is not challenging the legitimacy of General Assembly resolution 66/234. The application is accordingly receivable.

The General Assembly resolution, Staff Rules, and the ICSC principles and guidelines are clear and unambiguous. These rules stipulate that GS staff wishing to apply for a professional post must first pass the G to P exam unless exceptional approval for a waiver is granted.

Staff at level FS-5 and...

The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation and the subject matter complained of does not include an administrative decision. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the final non-selection decision, which was required to contest it. She only requested management evaluation of the decision not to invite her to a competency-based interview.

The Applicant seeks to contest a preliminary step in a selection process, which can only be challenged in the context of a final selection decision. It is a premature contestation of...

The Applicant did not seek a waiver of suspension of the deadline facing her, nor did she meet the deadline. For this reason, the application is not receivable ratione temporis as it is time-barred.

The Tribunal recalled that receivability is a condition sine qua non for judicial review.

The Tribunal noted that by the time the Applicant filed his application, he had not been formally notified of the abolition of his post and the restructuring exercise was still ongoing. Up to the date of the judgment¡¯s issuance, the situation remained the same as showed by a November 2023 email from UNDP to the Applicant asking him to confirm his interest in the position of Programme Assistant at the G-5 level. So far, the Applicant is still serving at the G-6 level in UNDP Pakistan.

The Tribunal...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the UN and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case. The Applicant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process while employed at UNOPS, had his appointment terminated for misconduct, and did not disclose this information in his PHP when applying for the position at the UNLB, UNGSC.

The Applicant's attempts to justify his conduct were both illogical and not grounded on evidence.

False claims and misrepresentations of qualifications on PHPs constitute serious misconduct for violating the legal framework. The Applicant's conduct was not an...

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...