����AV

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The Applicant’s Counsel’s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor’s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant’s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor’s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the UNDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of UNICEF.  The UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The UNDT’s legal approach was correct. The UNDT decided not to refer the ED of UNICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant’s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was “ITC”, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT found that the UNDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The UNAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae.  Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The UNAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation.  Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that UNDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...

The Notice and its placement in the Applicant’s personnel file   Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member’s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure “does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the “contested decision” as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

UNAT held that the UNDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. UNAT held that to the extent that the UNDT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, UNDT did not err in fact or law and UNAT upheld such conclusions. UNAT held that there were errors by UNDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the UNDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...