����AV

Mr. Okwir appealed. UNAT found that the UNDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the UNDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid.  UNAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager’s evaluation of the selected candidate’s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent’s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant’s assertion that the Acting Director of the Administrative Services Division had...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant’s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

Pursuant to staff rule 9.6(c), the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who, like the Applicant, holds a continuing appointment in accordance with the terms of the appointment on the grounds of “unsatisfactory service”. The Secretary-General has delegated this authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management (USG/DM) according to annex IV on delegation of human resources authorities to ST/SGB/2019/2 regarding delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules (see p. 21). No exception to this delegation of authority is made...

The contested memorandum is not an administrative decision open to challenge as per the definition adopted by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision affecting her terms of employment and the contested memorandum concerns a general delegation of authority. Consequently, the application is rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS’s decision does not refer to the specific...