����AV

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It “operates under the authority” of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational “independence”. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The UNAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-à-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the “contested decision” as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

The deadline for the Applicant’s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant’s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

UNAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the UNDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. UNAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member’s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member’s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. UNAT held that, in Ms Rees’ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. UNAT held...

UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by UNDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the UNDT had erred in assessing the damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant’s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered “exceptional circumstances,” justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. UNAT noted that an applicant’s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. UNAT was not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments upon appeal and did not find any...