51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal denied the Motion as irreceivable and rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for an extension of time to file his substantive application.

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The UNAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The UNAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior UNDT case concerning ABE. The UNAT considered it clear that the issues before the UNDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the UNDT in the case on appeal. The UNAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the UNDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

The...

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant¡¯s First Reporting Officer¡¯s (¡°FRO¡±) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of ¡°Successfully Meets Expectations¡±, the comments of the Applicant¡¯s Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant ¡°consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively¡± and commending her ¡°ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is ¡°serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment¡± for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in UNEP (part of the Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing ¡°non...

Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or UNIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.

For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.

Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management...