����AV

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis. 

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

UNAT considered Mr Wang’s appeal, specifically as to whether UNDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. UNAT was satisfied that the evidence before UNDT supported the Administration’s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. UNAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Ibrahim. UNAT held, agreeing with UNDT, that there was nothing illegal or warranting compensation in the investigation process and the investigation was not vitiated by procedural error or improper motive. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the cross-appeal. UNAT held that the bottle of wine disappeared immediately after Mr Ibrahim had handled it for the second time in front of the camera and then with his back obstructing the camera. UNAT held that, apart from the direct link between the manipulation of the bottle of wine by...

On the request for the oral hearing, UNAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. UNAT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether UNDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, UNAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) UNDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Summary Judgment The Tribunal noted that Summary Judgment can only be entered in a case where the material facts are not in dispute and a party to case is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further that for a party to seek Summary Judgment, it has to be on the merits of the case and such a party should have pleaded facts in relation to the case. The Respondent had not pleaded any material facts and had also not joined issues with the Applicant on the merits of the case. Receivability In determining the receivability of the Application, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s access to...

The Tribunal found that the PCO’s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define “personal data”, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the UNDT and UNAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

The UNDT found that the Applicant was unable to prove that the selection process was biased against him and that the consideration of his candidacy was marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or resulted in a failure to give him proper consideration. The application was dismissed.

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time UNMIK’s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant’s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant’s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant’s rebuttal and UNMIK’s transmission of the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant’s...

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.