51ÁÔÆæ

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...

In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

It was not disputed that the Applicant borrowed money from a Sales Manager working in a company doing business with MONUC. In the light of the applicable law and in particular the financial and procurement rules, the Tribunal found that misconduct had been properly established. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found a certain number of mitigating factors such as the fact that he repaid the loan in full and that it was a ¡°one-off decision¡±. Therefore, the Tribunal took the view that the sanction was not proportionate.

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB¡¯s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

The Tribunal found established the facts of which he was accused and considered they constituted misconduct, no irregularity was identified in the procedure and the sanctions were not deemed disproportionate. However, unlike the written censure and demotion, the prohibition of promotion for a certain period of time was not among the range of disciplinary measures foreseen in former staff rule 110.3 (a), which rendered its imposition unlawful, pursuant to the principle nulla poena sine lege. Hence, the said sanction was rescinded and CHF1000 granted as compensation for the loss of chances...

In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant¡¯s physical presence was not required in the U.S. for her to file her Application.

Judicial Review is a supervisory jurisdiction. It is not a jurisdiction which a tribunal may exercise over itself. The former UNAT and the UNDT were and are creatures of statute. Each has the ability, inherent to all courts and tribunals, to imply powers to prevent abuses of process; however, the jurisdiction of each tribunal is limited by the provisions of its respective empowering statute. In the absence of specific jurisdiction conferred on a statutory tribunal by statute, the power to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction such as judicial review cannot be implied. This conclusion is...

UNDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

As the matter had been formally, although mistakenly, transferred to the UNDT in Nairobi and is registered in its records, it is appropriate to issue an order striking out the case so that this matter is formally closed on the court¡¯s docket and is properly recorded as such. UNDT ordered that the application be struck out.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in view of the informal resolution of the dispute.

Since the Applicant received an extension of time and failed to submit an application, UNDT dismissed the matter for want of prosecution.

The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant¡¯s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent¡¯s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. UNDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...

The judge must raise on his/her own motion the issue of receivability of an application and in particular verify whether the requirements of former staff rule 111.2 (a) have been complied with since the request for review of an administrative decision is a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the UN Dispute Tribunal. The absence of the request for review leads to the irreceivability of the application (see judgments UNDT/2010/158, Osman; UNDT/2009/070, Planas; UNDT/2009/054, Nwuke; UNDT/2009/035, Caldarone). The Tribunal¡¯s competence is limited, pursuant to art. 2.1 (a) of the...

UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...

1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant¡¯s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...