51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT judgment was defective or that the UNDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of UNDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, UNAT held that UNDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. UNAT held...

On the termination decision, UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before UNDT. UNAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, UNAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as ¡°recognized expenses¡± unless one of the exceptions set out in...

The Tribunal found that the provided reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not properly based on facts and, consequently, that the contested decision was unlawful. To determine remedies, through a subsequent judgment, the Tribunal instructed the parties to file final submissions on the matter taking into account its findings in the instant Judgment.

As of the date of this Judgment, the Applicant has failed 51ÁÔÆæ the Tribunal¡¯s orders. The Applicant did not submit an updated medical certificate explaining his failure to comply. The proceedings cannot continue when Counsel is not instructed by her client. The Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the legal proceedings, which were therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and the matter was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal¡¯s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration when it comes to the evaluation of job candidates. All that is required from the Administration is that it minimally shows that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given a full and fair consideration. The applicable legal framework allowed the consideration of gender and geographical diversity in the recruitment process.

The Tribunal reviewed the documents submitted by the parties as well as the Respondent¡¯s clarifications on the anonymity of the test and found that the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the candidates¡¯ responses were not anonymized was not supported by the evidence. The Applicant argued that the assessment panel was not properly constituted in accordance with sec. 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as only two individuals, none of whom are female, graded the test results. The Tribunal acknowledged that the three-member composition of the assessment panel provided in ST/AI/2010/3 is not mandatory, as the...

Receivability In Lloret Alca?iz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, the Appeals Tribunal specifically addressed the issue of receivability of applications contesting, directly or indirectly, regulatory decisions of the General Assembly. Like in the present case, the applicants in Lloret Aclaniz et al. argued that they were not challenging the decision of the General Assembly to introduce a new Unified Salary Scale but rather the implementation of this new scale by the Secretary-General in their individual cases, who failed to take into account their acquired rights. The applications were found to be...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s FTA Given the financial situation, the Tribunal finds that the challenged decision is not ultra vires, being for the administration to evaluate the opportunity to renew temporary contracts according to the financial situation of that time. The lawfulness of the non-renewal decision must be evaluated with reference to the situation of the moment in which the decision was taken. However, in presence of a contract whose effects remain for a longer period, and which do not require non-renewal notices, the reason constituting the ground of the administrative decision...

Regardless of his appeal of the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity, the Applicant¡¯s failure to honour his private legal obligations under Swiss law violated staff rule 1.2(b) and ST/AI/2010/12 and thus the established facts amount to misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the disciplinary measure imposed in this case was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected.

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not extended beyond its expiration due to the liquidation of the Mission. The decision not to extend the appointment was supported by the evidence and therefore lawful. The fact that the Applicant had incurred in personal debt does not generate an obligation on the Administration to find her an alternate post upon the closure of the Mission.

The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the Tribunal. Thus management evaluation was a prerequisite. The application was filed out of time because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response as required by art. 8.1(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the United Nations Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant¡¯s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.

The Tribunal is aware that one thing is a budgetary provision, although assessed as operational, and that another thing is the concrete ed effective availability of the funds to be used to cover staff costs. In this case, however, the Respondent, who bears on this issue the burden to prove the specific and concrete financial situation, gave no evidence about the alleged cash problems or inconsistency of the budget. The decision by the Organization to terminate the Applicant¡¯s continuing appointment is therefore not justified and unlawful. Furthermore, the decision was not preceded by the due...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore, found no basis to impugn the contested decision. As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with UNFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately¡ªit was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration¡¯s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misrepresentations, including the...