�鶹��ý

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

UNAT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official’s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation’s...

UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov’s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. UNAT held, however, that UNDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov’s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. UNAT held that Mr Dolgopolov’s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The UNECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The UNECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with UN international legal instruments on human rights. The UNECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant’s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the UNECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS UNON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS UNON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...

The applicability of the duty of care to International Organizations had already been addressed in the earliest years of the United Nations: in its Resolution 258/III of December 3, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly raised “with greater urgency … the question of the arrangements to be made by the United Nations with a view of ensuring to its agents the fullest measure of protection”. The duty of care was formally addressed in ST/SGB/2009/7 (Staff Rules - Staff Regulations of the United Nations and provisional Staff Rules), by requiring the Secretary-General to ensure, having regard to...

Receivability Immunities have been incorporated into the terms of appointment of United Nations staff members—including at the highest level of the Organization’s legal order and ever since its inception—thereby becoming part and parcel of their status and conditions of service. Furthermore, a decision to waive the immunity of a given staff member has evident—potentially dramatic—effects on his or her legal situation. Thus, the contested decision meets all the features of the definition of an administrative decision adopted by the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant acted diligently with respect to the filing of his request for management evaluation and met the deadlines set forth by the MEU. This is particularly relevant as the reason for the elapsed time to file such request was the attempt at informal resolution of the dispute under the auspices of the UNOMS. The application is receivable ratione materiae. As the parties entered mediation before the Applicant’s filing of a request for management evaluation, the applicable provision for the calculation of the 90-day deadline to file an application is art. 8.1...