����AV

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant’s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract is also...

The Respondent produced adequate contemporaneous written documentation to minimally show that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration pursuant to Lemonnier and Verma. The Applicant failed to rebut this with clear and convincing evidence, noting that the contested non-selection decision was solely based on him failing this written test and that no evidence on record points to any ulterior motives.

The Applicant argued that the decision to abolish his post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper motives, but the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The Applicant applied for three posts at his level and the record showed that staff members holding continuing appointments from a closed peacekeeping mission were appointed to two posts. Since staff members holding continuing appointment have priority over staff members holding fixed-term appointment, the Administration’s decision regarding these two posts was found to be lawful...

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.

Upon review of the record, the Tribunal finds that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing which would give rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal of his temporary appointment. The erroneous approval by the OIC of Mission Support cannot be understood to create a legitimate expectation of the renewal. There was maladministration in terms of delay in communicating the error to the Applicant and the Respondent has provided compensation to the Applicant in that respect. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the Administration’s finding that there were no...

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...

The Applicant was not a staff member at the time of the contested decision, and her former employment was with a different entity than that concerned by the administrative decision under review in this case. No nexus existed between the Applicant’s former employment with the Organization and the administrative decision under review, and the Applicant has therefore no standing to challenge this decision. The cancellation of a selection process is not a challengeable administrative decision. In this case, the canceled job opening was eventually re-advertised and the Applicant eventually selected...

In UNDT/NY/2019/012, the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision within 60 days and the application in this respect is therefore not receivable. In UNDT/NY/2018/045, the Applicant only learned the real reasons underlying the decision not to select him for the position at the management evaluation stage. Therefore, he was allowed to introduce arguments concerning these reasons in his application before the Dispute Tribunal even if he had not raised them at the management evaluation stage. The Administration decided to select two female...

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

As the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae under staff 11.2(a). Related