����AV

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY’s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS.  The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence.  The fact that the three witnesses...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant’s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration’s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) “a list of candidates” that was “endorsed by a central review body” or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that “[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction”. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.  

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant’s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request. 

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant’s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member’s averment...

The UNAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the UNDT. The UNAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The UNAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...