51ÁÔÆæ

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes UNDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-UNAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that the facts on which the sanction was based had not been established and the facts that were established did not legally amount to misconduct. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore a violation of his rights. Witness statements: The Tribunal concluded that the witness statements without averments of truthfulness could not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant solicited and obtained money from the five complainants in return for their recruitment as casual daily...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. UNCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of UNCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that UNCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

Receivability: Confirmative decisions do not reset the clock with respect to statutory time limits; however, if, despite having issued an earlier decision denying benefits, 1) the Organization undertakes a new verification procedure under the terms of the applicable rules at the time of said earlier decision (in this case ST/SGB/2013/4), 2) that process is not finalized, and 3) a subsequent decision denying benefits is taken under a new set of rules (in this case ST/SGB/2003/14/Rev. 1), the latter decision constitutes a new, final decision, and statutory time limits start to run anew. Non...

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The UNDT found that the Applicant chose not to submit her candidacy for this P-5 vacancy. Accordingly, the outcome of the selection process had no direct legal effect on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked standing to contest the selection process. The application was therefore dismissed.

The UNDT found, on the one hand, that UNAMA decision to close the case given the conclusions of the investigation constituted a valid exercise of discretion by the Administration, and that the Organization did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing the full investigation report with her. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that UNAMA failed to take diligent action with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaint and that it incurred inordinate delays both in reviewing and assessing the Applicant¡¯s complaint and in setting up a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation into her...

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

Interpretation ¨C As held in Sidell 2014-UNAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-UNAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

Moral damages ¨C As held in Asariotis 2013-UNAT-309, damages for a moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed (be they specifically designated in the Staff Regulations and Rules or arising from the principles of natural justice). Where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of...

The Tribunal considered that since the decision of 29 April 2015 was superseded by subsequent renewals, the application was moot, hence irreceivable. Receivability: An application against a non-renewal of appointment becomes moot when the appointment is extended prior to or pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, since the contested decision is deprived of its effects. As a consequence, the application is irreceivable.

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant¡¯s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (¡°UNDP¡±), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at UN Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...

A Graduate Certificate is not equivalent to a Bachelor¡¯s or Master¡¯s degree. The correspondence from the Charles Darwin University confirms that ¡°a graduate certificate does not replace, or is equivalent to a bachelor degree, it simply has similar entry requirements in terms of previous education or experience¡±. The Applicant therefore did not have a Master¡¯s degree or equivalent, or a first-level University degree. Removing the Applicant from the roster of preapproved candidates. When the Administration intends to deprive a staff member of a certain status or right that may otherwise have...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...