����AV

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before UNDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office is not sufficient in this regard. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

As a first preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. UNAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant’s own motions and UNAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. UNAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent’s observations on a motion. UNAT held that its RoP did...

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

UNAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. UNAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted the staff member’s cross-appeal, in part. UNAT found that the UNDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member’s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

UNAT found no fault with the UNDT’s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. UNAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar’s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...