51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Definition of harassment: Disagreements on work performance and other work-related issues are per se not excluded from the definition of harassment, and thus from the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5. Requirements to initiate an investigation and standard in appraising them: Section 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5 provides for two general criteria for the purpose of launching a fact-finding investigation: (1) that the formal...

Appealable decisions: According to article 2.1(a) of the Statute, a staff member may not contest before the Tribunal a decision which does not affect his or her rights under the staff member¡¯s contract of employment or terms of appointment.Decisions on publication of United Nations documents: Pursuant to former staff rule 112.7 and staff rule 1.9, all rights on documents prepared by a staff member as part of his or her functions following his or her supervisors¡¯ instructions and under their supervision belong to the Organization only. Accordingly, a decision on the publication of such document...

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.

The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation ¡°until further notice¡± with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process ¡°at any stage in the future¡±, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by UN-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...