����AV

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all UN staff members were to be “considered first”, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a UN staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant’s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

The Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal took the view that the decision taken by the administration to appoint an ad interim DCPM and to reallocate responsibilities and duties pursuant to that appointment was an administrative decision. Nevertheless, for the purposes of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute, the Tribunal stated that it is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely establish that an administrative decision was taken in the overall context of the position she...

i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The main legal issue in this case is whether there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. The Respondent made the bare assertion that the communication dated 21 September 2007 mistakenly referred to the cancellation of his appointment, whereas it was a withdrawal of the offer. Therefore, according to the Respondent no contract was created, the Applicant was not a staff member, and his application is not receivable. The Applicant submitted that there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. UNDT found that the offer of appointment accepted by the Applicant and the...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member’s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in UNHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The lack of transparency alleged by the applicant is a general argument which, to be retained, must...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member’s career. Under the principle that...

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants’ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

UNDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant’s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.