����AV

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis. 

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline. 

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The UNAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner’s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for UNOMS and as President of UNPAD. The UNAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal.  The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022).  Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case.  With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal.  As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019.  Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021. 

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It “operates under the authority” of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational “independence”. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18).  The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it.  Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. UNDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.