51ÁÔÆæ

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by UN-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the UN do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

The UNDT found that the decision that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The UNDT found that the Applicants¡¯ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The UNDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The UNDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

In accordance with staff rule 4.3, when a staff member has been legally accorded nationality status by more than one state, the staff member¡¯s nationality for purposes of the Staff Regulations and the Staff Rules shall be the nationality of the State to which the staff member is, in the opinion of the Secretary-General, most closely associated.In light of the provisions of staff rule 4.3, and in absence of any evidence that the discretion granted the Secretary-General by that rule has been exercised arbitrarily, in an abusive manner or vitiated by improper motives, the Tribunal finds that the...

The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of ¡°sub-delegation¡± should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...

The Tribunal rejected the application and awarded costs for abuse of process.

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The UNDT noted that the contested decision had been rescinded by the Prosecutor, ICTY, and hence the application was moot. The Applicant contended however that the decision had already been implemented since she was no longer assigned any appeals-related work. The UNDT examined whether her new functions were commensurate with her functional title of Senior Appeals Counsel (P-5), and whether the Prosecutor, ICTY, was entitled to assign her to such tasks. It found that pursuant to staff rule 1.2 (c) and Annex IV to ST/AI/234/Rev.1, the Administration had broad discretionary powers when it comes...

Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

The Tribunal found that the ICTR management was right 51ÁÔÆæ the checking out procedures by withholding the Applicant¡¯s checkout since had been part of a committee that had not rendered financial accounts. The Applicant had been a member of an executive committee that had left office without accounting for finances during their tenure which prompted the ICTR management to withhold some of the Applicants entitlements until such accountability is undertaken. Accountability: The Applicant cannot reap a harvest of compensation from his own lack of accountability. He did not deny that he...

Reasons for non-renewal: A staff member has a right to ask the administration to provide for reasons of non-renewal of his/her contract; if he/she does not ask, then he/she cannot claim not to have been given reasons for the decision and seek to infer negative inference. Fraught working relationship: If a staff member¡¯s work relationship with his/her superiors has deteriorated to the extent that there is no possibility of salvaging such a relationship, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion not to renew such a contract.

The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The UNDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the UNDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

The Tribunal concluded that: (a) the selection process for the post of D/ACGSD was not handled correctly and lawfully due to apparent bias on the part of the ASP and that he suffered prejudice/damage as a result; and (b) the Applicant was not the victim of harassment and discrimination in relation to this case. Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. The Tribunal concluded that the Advisory Selection Panel (ASP) in the present...

Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. On the basis of the evidence about negative views held by one of the interview panel members about the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the test for apparent bias had been made out. Harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority: The Tribunal concluded that in spite of the adverse finding that the Applicant did not receive full and fair consideration in his application for the...