�鶹��ý

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

The Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment. As the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment which expired, staff rules 9.6(e) and (f) do not apply. Therefore, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain the Applicant. The application is therefore not receivable.

UNDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant’s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). UNDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant’s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant’s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a “dry cut”...

The Applicant’s challenge against her first reporting officer’s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (UNDT/2020/030 and 2020-UNAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant’s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not based on improper motives as had been alleged by the Applicant. Rather, UNDP had acted farily and transparently. Thus the Tribunal held that there was no illegality, irrationality and unfairness in the impugned decision.

Staff rule 4.9(a) provides that inter-organization movements shall be governed by an inter-organization agreement, and UN Women agreed to release the Applicant on secondment in accordance with the Inter-Organization Agreement. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the Inter-Organization Agreement apply in this case. Under the Inter-Organization Agreement, the Applicant had the rights of employment upon her return from secondment, which means that she had the right and the obligation to resume work at UN Women upon return from her secondment. Such rights were not respected when she was forced...

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant’s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (“CRP’). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...