¹ú²úAV

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

UNDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. UNDT held that the Application was not res judicata. UNDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. UNDT/NBI/2013/014). UNDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The Respondent submitted that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis since the Application was filed more than three years after the Applicant’s receipt of the impugned administrative decision, however the Tribunal found the application to be receivable due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Obligations under ST/AI/371: Under paragraph 24 of ST/AI/371/ it was the duty of the Applicant to file an appeal with the JDC within two months of the notification of the disciplinary measure meted out to him. Although the Applicant failed to submit a request for review of his...

Receivability: Noting that the Applicant submitted his Application 3 days before requesting management evaluation of the contested decision and that his request for management evaluation was submitted a month after the deadline for the statutory delay, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable.

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in UNAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...