51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

UNDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. UNAT held, however, that UNDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. UNAT held that Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, UNAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. UNAT noted that UNDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

UNAT disagreed with UNDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General¡¯s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. UNAT firstly held that UNDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. UNAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, UNAT also agreed with UNDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, UNAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, UNAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. UNAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, UNAT found because...

UNAT held that the UN-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the UNAT Statute and, consequently, UNAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of UNAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

UNAT agreed with UNDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. UNAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.

UNAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the UNDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, UNAT also found no error in the UNDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, UNAT found no error in the UNDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.