�鶹��ý

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...

UNAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. UNAT held that there was no reversible error on part of UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. UNAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year’s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. UNAT held that the award of twelve months’ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. UNAT held that UNDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed...

UNDT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. UNDT held that it could not be stated that the decision of nonrenewal was an improper exercise of discretion. UNDT held that the evidence showed that the Applicant’s appointment was not renewed because there was no further funding available. UNDT held that there was no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention that the decision to extend her contract in January 2008 using Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme funds, while she was working on other projects, was done in order to prepare the ground...

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members’ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

Tribunal’s review of eligibility for benefits: The Secretary-General has no discretion to grant or deny a benefit provided for in the Staff Regulations and Rules and is bound, in this respect, by the applicable rules. Accordingly, when the matter before the Tribunal concerns the refusal to grant a benefit, the Tribunal may only examine whether the staff member was eligible for, or entitled to, such benefit, without taking into account the grounds for refusal provided by the Administration. The fact that other staff members in the same situation may have been granted the disputed benefit is...

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal’s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome: