�鶹��ý

The UNDT found that the facts in this case have not been established to the required standard, that is, the alleged misconduct has not been established by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent’s case was based on inconclusive evidence linked together by certain inferences and assumptions, without other possible explanations having been given due weight and consideration. As the facts have not been established, the Applicant’s actions cannot be classified as misconduct and no disciplinary measures should have been applied to the Applicant. The UNDT found that this case was not marred by...

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was receivable since the Applicant was alleging non-compliance with the terms of his appointment—namely, the obligation to act reasonably and in good faith—as a consequence of an alleged breach of an express promise creating a legitimate expectation. However, turning to the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the Administration had not created a legitimate expectation when the Executive Office of the Department of Safety and Security informed him that “barring unforeseen circumstances, it is the intention of the Department to extend [your] fixed...

The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.

The UNDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the UNDT Statute. The UNDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the UNDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent’s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the UNCB’s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of UNCB’s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller’s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant’s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the UNCB to deny the claim on 23...

UNDT’s review of OLA’s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA’s preliminary review of the Applicant’s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his “notice of arbitration”, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...

The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant’s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.

he second case was filed to address the Respondent’s contention that the first case was not receivable. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the UNDT. The UNDT found...