The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.
The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant’s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM’s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM’s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...
Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal’s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.
The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the UNAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.
The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention—let alone require—any given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...
Decisions of the General-Assembly - A decision of the General Assembly is binding on the Secretary-General who has a duty to implement it. The Applicant lacks the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of her appointment in so far as it is properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly’s decision to abolish it. Interpretation of section 3.7 (b) of ST/AI/2013/4 - Section 3.7 (b) does not envisage a situation of post abolishment. The said section contemplates a situation where the post formerly encumbered by a former or retired staff member continues to exist and the separated staff...
The Applicant, a UNDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.
Appeals against Ethics Office: The United Nations Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal’s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...
The UNDT found that the Applicant’s substantive post has not existed for the past two years and that the Applicant has temporarily encumbered vacant posts to which he was not recruited since then, it is evidently too late in the day to challenge the abolition of his post which took place in 2013. General Assembly Resolutions - To the extent that the decision to abolish the Applicant’s post was that of the GA, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the said decision.
