The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Receivability; The application is receivable ratione personae. After accepting the offer of employment, the Applicant effectively started to perform the functions of Senior Economic Affairs; Officer, ECE, on 1 May 2017. The Organization thus treated him like a staff member, although he was not eligible to apply and be selected for the position and no letter of appointment was signed. As a result, the Applicant is legitimately entitled to rights similar to those afforded to staff members, for the purpose of being granted access to the internal justice system of the United Nations.; Merits; The...
The Administration, contrary to its own policies, took into account the Applicant’s functional title only without considering his actual functions vis-à-vis the other P-4 posts in the JAOC. By neglecting to look beyond the Applicant’s functional title, the Administration unlawfully determined that the Applicant would be subject to a dry-cut. Significantly, the Applicant held a continuing appointment. Thus, applying the UNMIL Guidelines to the present case, the Applicant should have been automatically retained since there were, at the time of this application, other P-4 staff members in his...
Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral’s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant’s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal’s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...
The reason given to the Applicant for the impugned decision, namely, the organizational restructuring at UNFPA, is supported by the facts. Evidence shows that UNFPA suffered the significant financial shortfalls, and UNFPA, facing such a precarious financial situation, undertook the genuine organizational restructuring which resulted in the abolition of the Applicant’s post and the termination of her appointment. While the Applicant claims improper motives, the Tribunal finds that she presented no supporting evidence and thus did not meet the burden of proof in this regard. The Organization’s...
The Applicant did not respond to a case management order. She was therefore no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the proceedings which were deemed to have been abandoned. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.
The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant’s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...
The final decision to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration’s own action or by the Tribunal’s judgment, should the Applicant’s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant’s terms of appointment as it merely...
