The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of UNDT Statute require only “requesting”...
The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of UNDT Statute require only “requesting”...
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former UNAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-UNAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...
The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to UNOPS and that the Applicant did not show that UNOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant’s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...
The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that UNISFA’s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant’s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.
The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.
