¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. UNAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...

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 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.

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...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, UNAT also agreed with UNDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, UNAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, UNAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Applicant’s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

Since the receivability of an application is a question of law, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make use of art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, and to decide on the application by way of summary judgment, without transmitting it to the Respondent. Upon taking up her functions as a Programme Management Officer at UNFCCC on 8 November 2012, the Applicant knew about her step in grade, as per her offer of appointment of 24 September 2012. Since the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation against the determination of her step upon recruitment with UNFCCC four years...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.