Judge Bravo
Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed “exceptional circumstances” that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-UNAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant’s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant’s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that UNKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...
The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant’s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that “resets the clock” for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants’ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of UNAT’s reversal of the UNDT’s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted...
The Applicant was charged with having engaged in misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to the...
The Applicant was charged with having engaged in two acts of misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to “provide her with an effective remedy” after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of “res judicata” apply? The Applicant requests to be...
Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-UNAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...
The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant’s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.
For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...
The issue of disclosing an investigation report is not new. It was, in fact, considered by this Tribunal in its judgments Adorma UNDT/2010/205 and Haydar UNDT/2012/201 as well as by UNAT in judgment Ivanov 2015-UNAT-519. In the latter, UNAT entered into consideration of the non-disclosure of an investigation report despite the fact that the Secretary-General had questioned the UNDT’s jurisdiction over such a decision. The Organisation’s obligations as stipulated in ST/SGB/2008/5 are an integral part of a staff member’s contractual rights. They include the obligations of the Organisation and...
The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of UNHCR’s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (UNHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: “Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision”. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...
The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (“MIP”) Rules, the Tribunal’s role essentially consisted in examining whether UNHCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...
The distinction between reimbursement of 100 per cent of admissible educational expenses for a child with a disability who attends a regular education institution depends on whether the necessary special arrangements are provided by the educational institution or not. If the institution does not provide such arrangements, the special teaching expenses are reimbursed at 100% but the educational expenses are reimbursed at the regular rate of 75%. Sec. 14.1 has to be read in conjunction with sec. 12 of the ST/AI/2011/4, which defines admissible expenses for the special education grant as...