¹ú²úAV

It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, UNOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, UNOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

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...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: UNON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to UNAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

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...

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.

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant’s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...

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...

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...

The Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.