51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the UNDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

At the relevant time, the Applicant was serving as Senior Coordination Officer for the Global Water Operators Partnerships Alliance (¡°GWOPA¡±), an alliance of partners promoting the Water Operators Partnership established by UN-Habitat. He was heading the GWOPA Secretariat and was sitting ex officio on the GWOPA Steering Committee as representative of the GWOPA Secretariat. The contested decisions were notified to the Applicant in two memoranda sent on the same day.; The Tribunal identified the following legal issues:; What was the nature of the contested decisions? Was the Applicant subjected...

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...

Promulgation of MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15: The Tribunal observed that MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15 is of general application to the extent that it applies to all MONUSCO personnel but it was not expressly issued for the implementation of any specific rules or ST/SGBs. However, it does not meet the requirements of ST/SGB/2009/4. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the lack of promulgation of the AI does not of itself render the impugned decision null and void. Withdrawal of the Applicant¡¯s driving privileges: The Tribunal found that MONUSCO Administrative...

While staff regulation 1.2(c) provides that in exercising his authority to assign staff members to activities or offices of the United Nations, the Secretary-General shall seek to ensure that ¡°all necessary safety and security arrangements are made for staff carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them,¡± such arrangements are not, in all circumstances, merely limited to physical safety and security. Reassigning a staff member from a core P-5 post established by the General Assembly to a General Temporary Assistance (GTA)-funded P-5 post established by ESCWA did not satisfy the test of a...

The Tribunal examined the following issues:; Issue No. 1 Classification exercise and lateral move requirements; The Tribunal noted that prior to the post being advertised it had been classified as a; ¡°geographical¡± rather than a ¡°language¡± post. As a consequence, the lateral move requirements, which apply to geographical but not to language posts, would have been to the Applicant¡¯s disadvantage. Following its classification as a language post this requirement was removed and staff at P-4 level, including the Applicant, were eligible to apply notwithstanding any lack of lateral moves.; Clearly...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to investigate her complaint under ST/SGB/2008/5 against the Chief, Languages Services (¡°Chief LS¡±), and fifteen of her colleagues and, following the investigation against two individuals, the decision to take managerial action against only one of the staff members she had complained about.; Receivability; Since the Applicant failed to request timely management evaluation of the decision not to investigate her complaint against the Chief, LS, and fifteen other staff members,; notified to her on 30 March 2017, these claims in...

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. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±) Rules, the Tribunal¡¯s role essentially consisted in examining whether UNHCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...

The distinction between reimbursement of 100 per cent of admissible educational expenses for a child with a disability who attends a regular education institution depends on whether the necessary special arrangements are provided by the educational institution or not. If the institution does not provide such arrangements, the special teaching expenses are reimbursed at 100% but the educational expenses are reimbursed at the regular rate of 75%. Sec. 14.1 has to be read in conjunction with sec. 12 of the ST/AI/2011/4, which defines admissible expenses for the special education grant as...

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...

The UNDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the UNDT within the prescribed time period. The UNDT found that UNDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the UNDT. Nevertheless, the UNDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

It is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level. Such a reassignment is lawful if reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. The responsibilities must correspond to the level, the function must be commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and skills and the staff member must have substantial experience in the field. An Organization has to act fairly, honestly, justly and transparently towards a staff member. If an Organization offers a staff member a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. UNAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. UNAT held that UNDT erred by awarding...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by UNDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure UNDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the UNAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. UNAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of UNAT. UNAT considered that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. UNAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. UNAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that UNRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...