51ÁÔÆæ

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate ¡°from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy¡± is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Receivability ratione temporis: The 60-day period specified in staff rule 11.2 to request management evaluation starts to run from the date of notification of a final decision. Applicable law: While annual leave entitlements are accrued on a monthly basis, the right to be compensated for accrued annual leave arises at the time when the staff member is separated from service. Thus, in assessing the lawfulness of a decision denying payment of annual leave, the Tribunal must take into consideration the provisions in effect at the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The IAMA requires the receiving organization to recognize a staff member¡¯s service in the releasing organization for ¡°credit¡± purposes. However, it does not require it to consider that the performance of the contract in the releasing organization was undertaken in a setting other than in its original one. It cannot be considered that the Applicant¡¯s contract was, prior to joining the United Nations, either under the control of the Secretary-General of the United Nations or that the Applicant had to previously answer to the United Nations staff rules. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet the...

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the UNDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the UNDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had been grossly negligent in that a duty-conscious and vigilant Logistics Assistant in the Applicant¡¯s position ought to have reasonably foreseen that the documents in possession of Mr Weah were sufficient to enable him to misappropriate the containers. The sanction was fair and proportionate. The Application therefore failed. Negligence test: Three elements which must be established to prove gross negligence; namely, (1) a failure in the form of an act or omission to exercise the requisite standard of care; (2) the standard of care required is that which a...

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine on its own motion the issue of receivability even if the parties did not raise it.

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that at least 78 candidates had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process and no procedural irregularity with an impact on her status as well as a probability for promotion...

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

The Tribunal held that the Administration did not have sufficient evidence of Mr. Koutang¡¯s level of engagement in outside activities to justify a finding that he had engaged in an outside occupation or employment. Thus, there were no reasonable grounds to sustain a finding of conflict of interest. While Mr. Koutang had installed a private router in his office there was no breach of security and no willful misconduct. Mr. Koutang had no ulterior motive or malicious intent in installing the router. It was at most an error of judgment with no proven adverse effects on the Country Office. The...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, UNAT held that UNDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. UNAT held that UNDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. UNAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. UNAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. UNAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

UNAT held that, when the Appellant contested before UNAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. UNAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. UNAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.