¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal noted that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the UNOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. The Applicant claimed that he was only officially made aware of his non-selection for the post when a formal announcement was made on 1 March 2018, which stated that another candidate had been chosen for the position. The Tribunal found that this claim was ill-founded, as a verbal unequivocal communication is sufficient for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) (see Auda 2017-UNAT-746). The Tribunal considered...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.

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 Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant’s former employment with UNHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that UNHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, the ABCC’s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC’s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant’s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

Management evaluation request The UNFPA Policies and Procedures Manual provides that they shall be submitted using a form annexed to said Manual and sent to a precise email address. While the Tribunal recognizes that the Applicant has not followed the established formalities to request management evaluation, i.e., use of a form and a specified email address, it cannot be overlooked that he exercised due diligence to ensure that his documented request reached the Executive Director, UNFPA and that, moreover, his request was acknowledged. The latter, in turn, brings the Tribunal to conclude that...

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review preparatory steps of an administrative decision and rejected the application as not receivable.

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 found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the UNDT was not receivable.