����AV

The Tribunal concluded that the relevant decisions to fast track the transition of the Applicant's post to Senior Gender Officer were fair, just and transparent.

The Applicant failed to convince the Tribunal that the Administration raised in him a legitimate expectation of renewal of his FTA. An erroneously raised personnel action without a written contract does not constitute a ground for legitimate expectation of renewal.

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that the Staff Regulations and Rules must be applied uniformly and consistently to staff members. United Nations procedures exist to facilitate fair and transparent substantive decisions, and the failure to abide by required procedures is no mere “technicality”, but instead undermines...

In sum, considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the imposed disciplinary and administrative measures were adequate in light of the Administration’s scope of discretion in this matter.

In accordance with former staff rule 104.12(b)(i) and provisional staff rule 4.13(c), the Applicant cannot claim a right to the renewal of her fixed-term appointment. The Applicant claims that the difficult working relationship she had with her supervisor led the latter, with the objective of getting rid of the former, to seek the reclassification of her post at a higher level. However, the Applicant does not prove that the non-extension of her appointment results solely from the desire of her supervisor to remove her from the service, nor that, consequently, the contested decision appears...

The Tribunal’s decision to grant a suspension of action on such a decision would not have the effect of rescinding or reversing the contested decision as claimed by the Respondent, but only that of suspending temporarily, from the date of the Tribunal’s decision and until such date as provided for in the UNDT statute, the legal consequences of the contested decision. The Applicant claims that the decision was not taken by the Secretary-General despite the Respondent’s claims to the contrary. The Respondent refused to comply with the Tribunal’s orders to submit a signed confirmation from the...

The former Staff Regulations provided that: “For the purpose of these Regulations, the expressions ‘United Nations Secretariat’, ‘staff member’ or ‘staff’ shall refer to all staff members of the Secretariat […].” Former staff rule 104.10 (a) prohibited the recruitment of the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member, except where another person equally well qualified could not be recruited. It results from the foregoing that candidates who have a family relationship with a staff member working for an entity part of the UN Secretariat are precluded from recruitment to a...

Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are well known and widespread instruments in administrative law, both in national and in international jurisdictions. Compared to the time limits in some national and international systems, the time limits in the UN justice system remain within a reasonable frame. As for exceptions, “exceptional cases” arise from exceptional personal circumstances. Relevant factors for an Applicant’s failure to act within the prescribed time limits are confined to his individual capacities. Factors like the prospects of success on the merits and the...

The Tribunal found that the evidence adduced by the respondent did not sufficiently support the charge that the applicant had not paid for three tickets issued to him by MCM and that, accordingly, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt in respect of this charge. About the applicant’s unauthorized absences from the mission area, the Tribunal held that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, a dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and that a written censure would be an appropriate measure. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s due process rights had...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent’s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY” (emphasis in the original). The indication “for settlement purposes only” in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant’s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...

In view of the evidence available and the Applicant’s refusal to disclose evidence that could exonerate her and that she alone could have produced, the Tribunal considered that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Section 20 of the Convention of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations provides that privileges such as VAT exemption are granted to staff members in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. Section 21 further provides that the United Nations shall cooperate at all times...