����AV

The decision to temporarily withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements pending the completion of the investigation by OAI into allegations of fraud, collusion, conflict of interest and misuse of authority was not receivable since it did not constitute an appealable administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute. The application was not receivable, ratione materiae, since the contested “decision” did not have direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant took the decision to resign, notwithstanding being advised that in doing so a...

The Tribunal notes that, while the non-selection decision is not explicitly mentioned in the Applicant’s list of impugned decisions in his management evaluation request, it could be regarded as subsumed under the description of “preselecting particular posts to go to external candidates” and the suggestion that the process was not transparent but “opaque”. The Applicant did request management evaluation of the non-selection decisions and that his claim in this regard is receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). As the Applicant failed to...

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 application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

UNDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. UNDT found no basis for the Applicant’s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. UNDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. UNDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant’s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant’s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant’s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.