51ÁÔÆæ

After the Applicant¡¯s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration¡¯s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member¡¯s privileges...

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb ¡°shall¡± is used (b) that for ¡°review and discussion¡±, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before¡ªand not after¡ªany selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the ¡°recommended¡± male candidate is ¡°clearly superior¡± to any...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

The UNAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a UNAT order requesting information. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that UNRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of UNDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration¡¯s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant¡¯s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...