51ÁÔÆæ

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the UNDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with UNFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the UNFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions is the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-; 684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration.; The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions was the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration. The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant¡¯s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.

The Applicant consistently, throughout the proceedings, admitted the fact that sometime between December 2006 and January 2007, he had stated in his job application that he had no relative working for a public international organization, even though he was aware that at the time his brother was working for the United Nations. As such, the fact that the Applicant failed to disclose relevant information when he should have, is essentially not in dispute. Whereas the Applicant insists to calls his deed an ¡°oversight¡±, it is impossible to accept. By invoking the same justifications for not...

The decision communicated to the Applicant on 29 March 2019 presents essentially the relief sought by the Applicant in his application dated 4 March 2019 and while the Applicant is still insisting on clarification from the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe (RSCE) as to the basis for the impugned decision, this neither minimizes nor negates the fact that the administration acceded to his request and rescinded the impugned decision altogether. The Applicant has not tendered any particulars or evidence to support, prove and/or explain his allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and mental...