�鶹��ý

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant’s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

Receivability: Only the appeal of the compensation amount was receivable—the Respondent had already conceded to the selection processes being flawed, the Applicant’s return to her liened post was not an administrative decision in itself, and the Applicant had defined a fourth decision too vaguely to give it any meaning. Compliance with orders: Lacking a response from Counsel for the Applicant to a written order, the Tribunal determined that, due to his failure to comply with the order, by default the Tribunal would deem that the Applicant had agreed with the Respondent’s contentions regarding...

The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measures are based were established. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (1): As the Applicant challenges the disciplinary measures on the sole ground that he did not commit the purported actions, there are no grounds for the Tribunal, once it has found that the facts are established, to consider whether these facts legally amount to misconduct and whether the sanctions imposed on the Applicant were proportionate. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (2): The circumstance that an investigation into misconduct might have...

Award of allowances: The award of an allowance is contingent upon the existence of a written text. The fact that, in breach of the applicable provisions, the Administration granted the end-of-service allowance to staff members who were in the same situation as the Applicant cannot serve as a basis for awarding the allowance to her. Applicability of national laws: National legislations are not directly applicable to UN staff members, and it is for UN authorized bodies to implement such legislation into the internal laws of the UN. Judicial review: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interpret...

The UNDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to disclose the reasons to the UNDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The UNDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The UNDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months’ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs’ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

The UNDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office’s failures and/or...