51ÁÔÆæ

Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...

Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

Decision 1 ¨C the Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to substantiate his claims of a flawed process and improper motives that led to his separation from service. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant knowingly assumed the risk of not being able to secure another assignment or position before the expiration of his FTA on 31 March 2016 when he declined the offer to be recommended for the regular budget position in Rabat as well as declined the extension of his temporary assignment. Decision 2 ¨C the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to follow proper procedure for the placement...

The Applicant consistently, throughout the proceedings, admitted the fact that sometime between December 2006 and January 2007, he had stated in his job application that he had no relative working for a public international organization, even though he was aware that at the time his brother was working for the United Nations. As such, the fact that the Applicant failed to disclose relevant information when he should have, is essentially not in dispute. Whereas the Applicant insists to calls his deed an ¡°oversight¡±, it is impossible to accept. By invoking the same justifications for not...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-UNAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant¡¯s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant¡¯s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that UNKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.

The Tribunal, after hearing evidence and submissions but before reaching a determination on the merits of the case save for a finding of procedural error, decided that this was an appropriate case in which to invoke art. 10.4 of the UNDT Statute to seek the concurrence of the Secretary-General to remand the case for institution or correction of the required procedure. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to approach the Secretary-General directly and not through Counsel who represents the SecretaryGeneral as the Respondent in this case. The Tribunal considered that such an approach would: (i...

UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT also affirmed UNDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

UNAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, UNAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, UNAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, UNAT held...

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, UNAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of UNRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...

UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of UNDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. UNAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. UNAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. UNAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. UNAT held that the contested...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that UNDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, UNAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...