����AV

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It “operates under the authority” of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational “independence”. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

UNAT held that since the Appellant’s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits).  UNAT concluded that since the Appellant’s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant’s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

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 Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of “successful candidates” for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

On anonymization Article 11.6 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides in its relevant part that its judgments shall be published while protecting personal data. A similar provision is contained in art. 26.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Given that the present case relies on medical evidence to support a claim for moral harm, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to redact the Applicant’s name from this judgment. On the merits Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded the following. First, the Tribunal found that the two charges against the Applicant were established as per...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (“the USG”), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence.  In a note on “delegation details” valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, “This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant’s objection to General Assembly’s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

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 UNDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates’ rights to fair and full consideration. UNAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that UNDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...