����AV

Due Process: It is UNAT jurisprudence that based on the staff rules there is no mandatory right to counsel for staff members who are undergoing interviews during the preliminary investigation of allegations for misconduct. Ultra vires: The author of the decision in this case was not the person who signed the 15 August 2011 dismissal letter but, as referred to in the letter, was the Under-Secretary-General for Management who took the decision on behalf of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to ST/AI 371/Amend.1, the decision-maker had the proper authority to do so and the decision was not ultra...

For courts such as the UNDT and UNAT to be effective in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, it is imperative that their decisions, however unpalatable they appear to a losing party, are obeyed and complied with, pending any judicial avenues for a remedy if the situation so warrants. The Tribunal holds that although the Statute is silent in as far as contempt provisions are concerned, the power to adjudicate on contempt is inherent in the jurisdiction afforded to the Tribunal by the Statute. The function of the Tribunal necessarily requires that its orders would be obeyed and not...

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

The Applicant contests OSLA's decisions of 5 November 2013 not to represent him in two of the cases he had at the time pending at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. It rejected the application on the merits, on the grounds that the decisions constituted a legal exercise of discretion on the part of OSLA, which had provided the Applicant with extensive legal assistance, had carefully considered all the issues and gave valid reasons on why it would not represent the Applicant. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that OSLA...

The Applicant, who had been separated on 31 December 2012, filed a report to OIOS in January 2013 referring to “gross breaches of UN project management and procurement rules and regulations” (part A of the complaint), “mal intended recruitment” (part B of the complaint) and “misconduct of supervisor” (part C of the complaint). He appealed the OIOS decision not to launch an investigation into his report and “not to provide him with the requisite information and to provide misleading information”. The Tribunal found that the application with respect to the decision not to investigate part A was...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant’s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes “that official acts...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision “stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal”. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer’s comments in the Applicant’s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal’s Statute.

At the relevant time, the Applicant was serving as Senior Coordination Officer for the Global Water Operators Partnerships Alliance (“GWOPA”), an alliance of partners promoting the Water Operators Partnership established by UN-Habitat. He was heading the GWOPA Secretariat and was sitting ex officio on the GWOPA Steering Committee as representative of the GWOPA Secretariat. The contested decisions were notified to the Applicant in two memoranda sent on the same day.; The Tribunal identified the following legal issues:; What was the nature of the contested decisions? Was the Applicant subjected...