����AV

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, there was no decision imposing disciplinary or administrative measures. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of any administrative decision related to the conduct of the investigation. The failure to seek management evaluation before...

An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member’s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating “partially meets performance expectations”, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...

The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of UNOPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant’s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.

The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...

The final decision to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration’s own action or by the Tribunal’s judgment, should the Applicant’s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant’s terms of appointment as it merely...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

UNDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. UNDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

UNDT held that the application challenging the OIOS’ decision not to investigate the Applicant’s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. UNDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to UNHCR for appropriate investigation and action. UNDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...