����AV

An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member’s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating “partially meets performance expectations”, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...

Receivability The Tribunal found that the ASG, OHRM’s failure to take action on the Applicant’s complaint almost nine months after its filing, taking into account only the period that preceded the request for management evaluation, is a clear violation of the provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5. The Tribunal considered that the Administration’s failure to act on the Applicant’s complaint amounted to an implicit administrative decision that was subject to judicial review. The application was therefore considered receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the failure to process the Applicant’s complaint...

Procedural issues Respondent’s challenge to the admissibility of certain documents Art. 18 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure contains the set of norms applicable to evidence. However, except for article 18.6, there is no specific provision in relation to admissibility of evidence based on recordings made without consent. The Tribunal finds that the transcript of a meeting the Applicant recorded is not admissible in the proceedings because it is tainted by the fact that one of the participants at the meeting was not aware that the meeting was being recorded. The Applicant cannot make use of...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s...

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the UN, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

After the Applicant’s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration’s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant’s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member’s privileges...

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb “shall” is used (b) that for “review and discussion”, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before—and not after—any selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the “recommended” male candidate is “clearly superior” to any...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed “after” she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR’s comments in relation to the Applicant’s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three “off the record” emails with the journalist and it was the...

Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member’s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant’s FRO’s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further...