51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The UNDT found that the candidates¡¯ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The UNDT found the Applicant¡¯s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant¡¯s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application and requesting that the case file be placed under seal. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. The UNDT found that, given the already confidential status of the Tribunal¡¯s case files, the Applicant¡¯s request to place the case record under seal need not be granted. However, the UNDT ordered that, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant¡¯s name be redacted from the Judgment.

UNDT found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest that the Chief, FASB, did not follow any of the applicable rules in denying the Applicant¡¯s request in reliance upon MSD¡¯s recommendation. The fact that the Applicant had not been provided with a reason as to why the treating physicians opinions were not accepted is not at issue in the present case and does not of itself impugn the integrity of the decision. UNFPA¡¯s reliance on MSD¡¯s recommendation was not improper nor was it an impermissible option for the manager to take within the ambit of his responsibilities.The...

One of the eligibility requirements was five years of continuous service with the Secretariat, excluding any service with separately administered funds or programmes. The Respondent asserted that for part of the relevant period the Applicant was employed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations Secretariat and the United Nations Development Programme, a separately administered programme. The UNDT found that the Applicant was converted by the United Nations to a permanent appointment in November 2010, which meant that the Organization had accepted that he had at...

The Applicant¡¯s separations from service were the result of the expiration of his fixed-term appointments in the natural course of business. There were no legal provisions or administrative decision requiring that the Applicant take any breaks in service between his FTAs. The time period between his separation from service on one FTA and his re-employment on another FTA, which was not followed by any type of reinstatement, results in the Applicant¡¯s continuity of service being broken. Therefore, one of the cumulative conditions of ST/SGB/2009/10, to have five years of continuous service before...

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Tribunal found that most of the Applicant¡¯s claims were time barred and that those which were not time barred were without merit. It was found that UNON had paid the Applicant¡¯s SPA for the periods when he was entitled to it and that he no longer had any legitimate claims for SPA against UNON. Employment Contract: A contract of employment is personal between the employee in each case and the employer. The terms of one¡¯s employment as stipulated in the letter of appointment or contract of employment is binding in personam between staff member and the organization and one cannot seek to...

The Applicant has not requested any damages or a modification of the contested sanctions but rather only their rescission. The Tribunal considers that the level of disciplinary measures that were finally applied against the Applicant were taken in accordance with the rules and therefore there are no rescindable decisions. The Tribunal can also not award a remedy that was not requested by the Applicant with regard to any delay in the proceedings or the original sanction which has since been modified 51ÁÔÆæ the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The application is dismissed.The UNDT found...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

The UNDT found that the two posts in question were available only temporarily and therefore the Administration¡¯s decision to advertise them as temporary vacancies was lawful. With respect to the first vacancy, the UNDT found that, as the successful candidate declined the offer, it was appropriate for the Administration to fill the temporarily vacant post through a lateral transfer. The UNDT further found that this decision was made by a person with proper delegation of authority. With respect to the second vacancy, the UNDT found that the selection exercise was also lawful. The application was...

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights: (i) the UNICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...

The UNDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office ¡°subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office¡±. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member¡¯s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...

The UNDT found that the decision to take into account the Applicant¡¯s recent disciplinary record was not a new disciplinary sanction but an exercise of discretion with regard to a new and separate discretionary administrative process. The contested decision did not amount to unequal or unfair treatment of the Applicant as compared to staff members with existing permanent appointments. The UNDT found that the Administration considered the Applicant eligible for consideration for conversion, but determined that he was not suitable for conversion in view of the recent disciplinary sanction...

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

Jurisdiction over decisions of the Ethics Office: The work of the Ethics Office is delicate in nature and its functions have a direct impact on staff member¡¯s rights. Therefore, in view of the case law of UNAT, the decision of the Ethics Office is an administrative decision and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review such a decision. Duration for conducting a preliminary assessment by the Ethics Office: The nature of the work of the Ethics Office requires timely reaction for effective protection of any ¡®whistle-blowing¡¯ activity. Although the duration of 45 days mentioned in section 5.3 of ST...