����AV

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant’s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

The UNDT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months’ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member’s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...

At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

Appealable administrative decision: Both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on the Tribunal’s website are matters of internal organization which do not constitute acts adversely affecting staff members’ rights.

Receivability – Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal’s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member’s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member’s performance appraisal.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an “administrative decision” under the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an “administrative decision”, because it does not produce “direct legal consequences”. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...