�鶹��ý

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

A a holder of an UN Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant’s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was “ITC”, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...