51ÁÔÆæ

The contested administrative decision was communicated to the Applicant on 9 August 2016. The Applicant had 60 days thereafter to request management evaluation. In other words, the Applicant had until 8 October 2016 to submit a management evaluation request. From the record, the Applicant requested management evaluation on 8 February 2017 and therefore did so out of time. It follows that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.

Where a member of an assessment panel is conflicted, s/he cannot take part in the selection process. It is irrelevant for the outcome of the present case, that the Head, PMCS, and the Director, DESS, confirmed in their evidence to the Tribunal that they did not feel any bias or resentment against the Applicant. Indeed, a subjective feeling is irrelevant and the question of impartiality or bias has to be analysed from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer. It is also irrelevant whether the Applicant had a subjective feeling that one or more of the Panel members were biased...

Receivability The application registered under Case No. UNDT/GVA/2015/182, insofar as it is directed against the decision to discontinue the post encumbered by the Applicant, is not receivable ratione materiae. In his application registered under Case No. UNDT/GVA/2016/039, the Applicant contests his separation from service effective 2 March 2016 and the non-renewal of his appointment, as a result of the abolition of his post. This is an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring and the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post. Merits Procedural regularity The noncompliance with a...

No legal implementation of an expired decision: The Tribunal underlines that, after its expiration a decision cannot any longer produce legal effects and therefore cannot be implemented and / or extended and that any such action constitutes itself a breach of procedural fairness.

The decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment is often closely linked to the Organization¡¯s broader discretion on how to organize its services. In that respect, the Tribunal notes that in times of scare resources, managers bear particular responsibilities for making sound management decisions, which implies making an assessment of services needed at a given time in a given department, and to avoid to unnecessary expenditure of public money with which they are effectively entrusted. Any post facto assessment of these matters is only relevant to the extent that it is able to demonstrate...

The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...

How to measure a loss of change. The Tribunal finds that, as stated in Niedermayr, the assessment of loss of chance is an inexact science, and the Tribunal must assess the matter in the round and arrive at a figure deemed to be fair and equitable having regard to the number of imponderables present in the case, including the chances of being selected. The Tribunal should take into account two matters: (a) the nature of the irregularity and (b), thereafter in the assessment, all the imponderables, noting all the while that this is an inexact science (Niedermayr). The Tribunal notes the...

The Tribunal held that the uncontested evidence before it was that the General-Assembly endorsed the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation for the abolishment of 80 Language Assistant posts, including the one encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal found and held that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawful as it was a proper implementation by the Secretary-General of the General Assembly¡¯s decision. In his submissions, the Applicant had indicated that the Organization had abolished his post, but later hired him as an Individual Consultant (IC). He contended...

Functus Officio: A final decision cannot be reopened, and once the duties and functions of an office are fully discharged, there is no legal competence for reconsideration of the decision by that office. The Dispute Tribunal ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Applicant¡¯s case once the initial judgment was rendered and without the case being remanded by the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal cannot examine the application any further.

Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant¡¯s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...

Functus Officio: A final decision cannot be reopened, and once the duties and functions of an office are fully discharged, there is no legal competence for reconsideration of the decision by that office. The Dispute Tribunal ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Applicant¡¯s case once the initial judgment was rendered and without the case being remanded by the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal cannot examine the application any further.

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, ¡°the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case¡± (see Sanwidi 2013-UNAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-UNAT-680, para. 13): ¡°¡­ Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

The impugned decision of 21 April 2015 clearly: a) emanated from the Administration and b) produced direct legal consequences for the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. As such, the decision was capable of being subject to management evaluation as well as capable of being reviewed by the UNDT. The Applicant had until 90 days from 8 June 2015 to file an application before UNDT. The Applicant did not do so until 1 March 2016. The application is, therefore, late by almost six months. The Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant waiving the time...

The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...

The Tribunal is required to factually find that the decision that is impugned before it is in the process of being administratively reviewed. A preliminary finding to this effect is a prerequisite for litigation before this Tribunal. The record before the Tribunal did not show that a request for management evaluation had been filed by the Applicant. The Applicant was given the opportunity to address this situation and correct it, but did not. The application therefore was found incompetent and the only option open to the Tribunal was to summarily dismiss it for want of management evaluation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...

Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent¡¯s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties¡¯ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of recoveries from his pension, affirmed by the Management Evaluation Unit on 14 April 2015 was not receivable. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had until 13 July 2015 to file an application challenging the decision but he failed to do so. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive dependency benefits of his adopted children, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of that decision within 60 calendar days, but he did not do so. Consequently, the application was rejected as it was...

After being presented with the allegations of misconduct on 9 July 2014, the Applicant responded on 21 August 2014. The decision to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant was communicated to him on 4 December 2014. Thus, a review of the entire case against the Applicant and communicating to him of the outcome took a little over three months. This time frame was not unreasonable and did not constitute a breach of due process. On the facts before the Tribunal, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to give the Tribunal a basis for reviewing the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. UNAT held that the UNDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. UNAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...