51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The UNDT found that she was evaluated fairly with respect to both the written test and the interview, which was based on appropriate criteria. The UNDT found that the selection process was not biased against the Applicant and that consideration of her candidacy was not marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or result in a failure to give her proper consideration. The UNDT dismissed the application.

The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the UNDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant¡¯s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...

The UNDT found that OHRM¡¯s decision not to consider (endorse) her for a temporary P-3 post in DM (Umoja) and to deny her conversion from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level was valid and lawful. The decision not to consider the applicant eligible for a temporary P-3 post was correct since she only fulfilled one of the mandatory and cumulative conditions ¨C five years of professional experience ¨C in November 2011. The Organization properly determined that the Applicant could not be converted from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level because there was no contractual relationship between the Applicant and...

The Tribunal finds that the pertinent facts and the legal issues in the present cases are on all fours as those of the ICTY cases. As both parties have accepted the ratio decidendi of the decisions by the UNAT in the ICTY cases, the Tribunal adopts the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Malmstr?m 2013-UNAT-357 and remands the UNAKRT conversion exercise to the ASG/OHRM for retroactive consideration of the suitability of each applicant within 90 days of the date of publication of this judgment in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Appeals Tribunal in the matter of Malmstr?m. Taking into...

Neither DSS, OHRM, the CRB nor the ASG/OHRM conducted a reasoned analysis on how the date and the gravity of the disciplinary sanction impacted on the recommendation(s) and/or the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. The Administration failed to apply its own Guidelines requiring that a mandatory review of the date and gravity of the disciplinary measure applied to the Applicant be conducted and that any resulting decision include a reasoned explanation thereto.