The Tribunal found that the provided reason for not renewing the Applicant’s appointment was not properly based on facts and, consequently, that the contested decision was unlawful. To determine remedies, through a subsequent judgment, the Tribunal instructed the parties to file final submissions on the matter taking into account its findings in the instant Judgment.
The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant’s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the UNDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the UNDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...
The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant’s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.
The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant’s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Related
The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the Tribunal. Thus management evaluation was a prerequisite. The application was filed out of time because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant’s receipt of the management evaluation response as required by art. 8.1(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute.
Non-renewal of the Applicant’s FTA Given the financial situation, the Tribunal finds that the challenged decision is not ultra vires, being for the administration to evaluate the opportunity to renew temporary contracts according to the financial situation of that time. The lawfulness of the non-renewal decision must be evaluated with reference to the situation of the moment in which the decision was taken. However, in presence of a contract whose effects remain for a longer period, and which do not require non-renewal notices, the reason constituting the ground of the administrative decision...
Receivability In Lloret Alcañiz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, the Appeals Tribunal specifically addressed the issue of receivability of applications contesting, directly or indirectly, regulatory decisions of the General Assembly. Like in the present case, the applicants in Lloret Aclaniz et al. argued that they were not challenging the decision of the General Assembly to introduce a new Unified Salary Scale but rather the implementation of this new scale by the Secretary-General in their individual cases, who failed to take into account their acquired rights. The applications were found to be...
A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with UNFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...
If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of “successfully meets performance expectations”, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...
The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore, found no basis to impugn the contested decision. As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
