����AV

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant’s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member’s position and was therefore his employer.  The UNAT found that the staff member’s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response.  The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant’s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the UNEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration’s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., “a review of the review”. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report and recommendations...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the UN and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

In summary, the Tribunal finds that in this recruitment exercise, the proper procedures were followed, the Applicant’s candidacy was given full and fair consideration, the applicable regulations and rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, and the OHCHR High Commissioner properly exercised her discretion in making the selection decision.

UNAT endorsed the UNDT’s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative.  UNAT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to “suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation” (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s request...