����AV

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant’s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the case was one of the cases provided for under Section 4.2 of ST/SGB/2009/11 on transitional measures. At the outset, the Tribunal declared the application irreceivable with respect to any claim which had not been raised previously in the request for review to the Secretary-General. The Tribunal further raised ex officio the issue of the receivability ratione personae of the application since the decision not to select the Applicant to the post was taken when the Applicant was a former staff member. The Tribunal noted that article 3, paragraph 1 (b), of the UNDT...

The Tribunal cannot allow the Applicant’s claim to continue to “hang like the sword of Damocles” over the efficient operations of the Organization. The Applicant had failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect of his Application. The Applicant’s Counsel’s responses show disregard for the directions from the Tribunal. The Applicant has not actively or diligently pursued his case.

The Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal took the view that the decision taken by the administration to appoint an ad interim DCPM and to reallocate responsibilities and duties pursuant to that appointment was an administrative decision. Nevertheless, for the purposes of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute, the Tribunal stated that it is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely establish that an administrative decision was taken in the overall context of the position she...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant’s complaints against ECA’s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 – Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.

The decision by the Chief of the Human Resources Services Section (HRSS) to discontinue the selection process without a proper determination that the recruitment procedures had not been followed precisely was an abuse of the Administration’s discretionary authority. While the Applicant had only been “recommended” for the post by the ASP and had not been “selected”, the serious procedural irregularity that resulted from the Chief of HRSS’ actions prevented his candidacy from proceeding to the central review body and therefore amounted to a violation of his rights. The decision was an abuse of...

Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the UNDT define a contract of employment to include “all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

UNDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG’s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. UNDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ ultimate selection decision...

The Applicant’s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the United Nations would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...