51ÁÔÆæ

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

Whether the contested decision is lawful

Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

The Organization¡¯s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all UN personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

The nature of the Applicant¡¯s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

Whether the Applicant had a right of return A Human Resources Factsheet, issued for Umoja users, provides that at the end of a loan period, the staff member concerned is expected to return to the Secretariat unless he/she resigns his/her Secretariat position to transfer to the receiving organization. Such practice has been clearly confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Iskandar (see Iskandar 2012-UNAT-248). Accordingly, while the Applicant¡¯s lien on his former post may have been surrendered in accordance with the Administration¡¯s decision of 9 September 2009, he retained a return right to OCHA...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and UNICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.