�鶹��ý

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a “jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact” of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member’s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant’s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The UNAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The UNAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The UNAT found that the UNDT had made an error of fact...

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant’s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...