����AV

The UNDT found that the Respondent’s argument that no promise had been made was untenable. The evidence clearly indicated that UNOPS Managers knew the Applicant would rely on the statements they made to her in regards to a one year contract extension. The Respondent repeatedly disregarded its own rules and regulations in the course of completing the Applicant’s performance appraisal and subsequently conducted a flawed rebuttal process which was biased and unfair and violated the Applicant’s due process rights. Promises made created expectancy of renewal - It is untenable for the Administration...

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

When joining UNOPS in 2009, the Applicant’s nationality for UN purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by UNOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

The UNDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant’s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process—such as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post—are normally not under consideration. Administration’s discretion to define the...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87–88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit—which can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit—can be “wilful, reckless or grossly negligent”. Gross negligence is defined as “an extreme or aggravated...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s challenge in relation to the decision to cancel his administrative leave (“AL”) was without merit. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence showed that the Applicant was placed on AL after UNOPS had received allegations of intimidation, harassment and other misconduct against him in the Sudan office. The Applicant did not contest the decision to place him on AL but only the decision informing him that his AL had not been extended and that no disciplinary action was being taken against him regarding the allegations. Accordingly, the decision not to extend...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.