Given the complexity and significance of the issues presented in this case, the assigned Judge requested the formation of a Three-Judge Panel, in accordance with Article 10.9 of the Tribunal’s Statute and Paragraph 4 of Practice Direction No. 1. Pursuant to the authorization of the President of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, the following Judges were appointed to the Panel: Judge Sun Xiangzhuang (Presiding), Judge Joelle Adda, and Judge Sean Wallace.
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal defined the issues for determination as follows:
a. Whether the Applicant had a realistic chance of being selected; and
b. Whether the Applicant suffered any financial loss due to the contested decision.
Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that there were irregularities in the selection process and recommended that the selection exercise be redone. The Under Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) had also...
The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:
Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization
While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...
Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant’s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.
The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager’s thorough assessment of the Applicant’s professional experience.
The Applicant’s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...
The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (“OIAIâ€) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, UNICEF’s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.
The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant’s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.
The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant’s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.
With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...
Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:
Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3
The entitlement under new staff rule 6.3 on parental leave is only effective as of 1 January 2023, and its application is subject to the “conditions established by the Secretary-General†as per staff rule 6.3(a). These conditions are set out in ST/AI/2023/2.
Section 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2 provides that said administrative instruction governs the administration of parental leave in respect of a child born or adopted on or...
The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.
The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...
The Applicant claims that the Administration’s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.
In the Tribunal’s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...
