����AV

The various acts submitted by the Respondent—General Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant’s post was established and funded and—by a subsequent exclusion—also showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal’s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of UN Women’s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (“G-3”). The Respondent...

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant’s...

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the UNAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

Based on the facts as presented in the application, the Tribunal determined two issues; (i) whether the Applicant was forced to retire, and (ii) whether the decision not to renew her FTA beyond 30 June 2021 was lawful. On issue one, the Tribunal held that based on the separation notice given to the Applicant dated 18 May 2021, read together with the Applicant’s letter of appointment and the evidence produced by the MONUSCO Chief of Human Resources during the hearing, there is no doubt that hers was a case of non-renewal of appointment. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant was not forced...

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant’s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant’s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement “measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures”. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration’s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration’s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...