51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...

UNAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. UNAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. UNAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. UNAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before UNDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.

UNAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and UNAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, UNAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. UNAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law when it found UNICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT did not accord any deference to UNICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, UNDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. UNAT held that UNDT made...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of UNRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding. UNAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...

The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has to all intents and purposes complied with the requirements of art. 8.1 (c). The Administration has had an opportunity to evaluate his request and has refused it. The Applicant is now entitled to come before the Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant¡¯s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has satisfied the requirements of art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Whilst his request for management evaluation may not have been drafted in the most articulate legal language, the substance conveyed leaves no doubt, the Applicant did not want to be removed from his post and was not happy that it had been readvertized. The Respondent¡¯s objections on the grounds of receivability have no merit.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

Ultra vires - Whereas procedures and guidelines may be developed by the Organisation to implement promulgated issuances, it is unreasonable for said guidelines to be so far reaching as to effectively add new provisions to the overarching issuance. This would amount to a usurpation of the legislative powers of the General Assembly.

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at UNON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of UNHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

The Application was rejected on the merits.