�鶹��ý

UNDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. UNDT found no basis for the Applicant’s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. UNDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. UNDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with UNFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the UNFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

Background for the examination of the issues in this case

The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (“OAIS”) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.

Financial loss to UNFPA

Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the UNFPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that UNFPA...

The reason given to the Applicant for the impugned decision, namely, the organizational restructuring at UNFPA, is supported by the facts. Evidence shows that UNFPA suffered the significant financial shortfalls, and UNFPA, facing such a precarious financial situation, undertook the genuine organizational restructuring which resulted in the abolition of the Applicant’s post and the termination of her appointment. While the Applicant claims improper motives, the Tribunal finds that she presented no supporting evidence and thus did not meet the burden of proof in this regard. The Organization’s...

The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant’s request for reconsideration, the Applicant’s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee’s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal’s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section’s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

The Applicant’s conduct was in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and rule 1.2(f) and constitutes misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did make efforts to persuade her supervisee to forego attempting mediation to resolve their interpersonal disputes and threatened that mediation could adversely affect her supervisee’s career. In particular, the Applicant implied that should her supervisee pursue mediation, her supervisee would develop a bad reputation and that mediation lacked confidentiality. The Applicant further indicated that there may be a negative impact on the chances of...

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant’s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...