¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant’s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant’s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

/

UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. UNAT found that in any case the UNDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant’s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. UNAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. UNAT held that the UNDT’s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment was based solely on speculation and that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. UNAT noted that...

UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as UNDT correctly concluded that applications to UNDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant’s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s claim was not receivable. UNAT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. UNAT also held that UNDT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. UNAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...