Â鶹´«Ã½

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant¡¯s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years ¡°partially meets expectations¡±. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

In its Judgment 2010-UNAT-029, El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal whereby only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him from timely pursuit of his appeal can be regarded as exceptional. The fact that the applicant believed at first that the contested decision was lawful is not an exceptional circumstance, the more so as he had the possibility to obtain information on the applicable rules from the Administration. In El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal further recalled that ¡°candidates for a public post are...

Whenever the administration decides a non-renewal of appointment on the grounds of poor performance, the Tribunal has to verify if the administration has complied with the relevant procedure. The application of ST/AI/2002/3 is not binding regarding staff members appointed for a period of less than one year. Having said that, once a supervisor decides to apply it, the said administrative must be fully complied with.According to ST/AI/2002/3, when the holder of a fixed-term appointment receives the lowest performance rating, the administration has the right not to renew his/her contract. When...

The only issue for consideration by the Tribunal is the adequacy of compensation granted by the Secretary-General to the applicant. The applicant alleged that if the selection process had been lawful, he would have been selected to the post and that the compensation granted did not take into account the decrease in his pension benefits. In order to obtain compensation, it is not enough for an applicant to determine that a procedural irregularity was committed; he should also establish that this irregularity caused him a direct prejudice. Therefore, the applicant should demonstrate that he had...

The respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that the applicant¡¯s post had been created, and the applicant recruited, specifically for the purpose of prosecuting the above-mentioned top Serbian leader. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to abolish the applicant¡¯s post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment had been taken in view of the necessities of service and constituted a proper exercise of the respondent¡¯s discretionary authority. Since it was established that the necessities of service justified the termination of the applicant¡¯s appointment, it was not...

The statement of the Executive Director is not an administrative decision that can be contested before UNDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. It is not an administrative decision within the meaning of the ruling in Andronov by the former UNAT. Indeed, the applicant did not contest the non-renewal of his appointment but a statement by the Executive Director. This statement is a simple opinion, not an administrative decision that could have affected the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. By the time the statement was published, the applicant was already aware of the non-renewal of his...

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before UNDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former UNAT and the recent jurisprudence of the UNDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Section 8.9 of ST/AI/1999/3 applies only to holders of fixed-term appointments. It is therefore not relevant to the applicant¡¯s case, as he held an indefinite appointment. Regarding the payments due, a clear distinction must be made between the termination indemnities, which are automatically due to the concerned staff member in the event of termination of his/her contract, as provided by the Staff Regulations and Rules, and the compensation package, which, in addition to that which is legally due, includes a certain amount that the administration chooses to give ex gratia; as such, it is...

It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that the administration is entitled not to renew the FTA of a staff member whose performance was rated ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡±, on the mere grounds of the staff member¡¯s bad performance. It further results from ST/AI/2002/3 that in case the staff member¡¯s performance was rated ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, the administration is obliged to apply measures which allow the staff member to improve his/her performance, before it can decide on the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s FTA on the basis of bad performance. In the present case, the...

In accordance with ST/AI/234/Rev.1, setting the normal number of working hours per week is a matter within the authority of the Executive Director of UNEP. Thus when he initially decided not to reduce the normal working hours in Paris, the Executive Director of UNEP acted within his discretionary authority. Since the applicants were legally required to work 40 hours per week from January 2006 to March 2007, their claim for 2.5 hours of overtime per week during that period is without merit. The applicants alleged discrimination, arbitrariness and bad faith on the part of the Administration in...

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before UNDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member¡¯s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

Since the applicant did not comply with the time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a), the Tribunal examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former staff rule 111.2 (f) which prevented her from submitting a request for review in time.The Tribunal applied the definition of exceptional circumstances adopted by the former UNAT and upheld by the UNDT in a number of judgments, i.e. circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Outcome: The application was rejected as time-barred.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The contested decision was linked to the decision to bar the applicant from entering the VIC in October 1999, when he was no longer a staff member of UNOV. Hence, the decision to deny his counsel access to the applicant¡¯s OSF did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The application was thus neither receivable before the UNAT nor before the UNDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Since the applicant was not a staff member of UNOV when the contested decision was taken, the decision to bar him from access to the VIC did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The decision could be contested neither before the JAB nor before the UNDT.

The contested decision did not affect the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment derived from his status as a former staff member or from his status as a retiree. Furthermore, there is not a contractual relationship between the applicant and the Organization derived from his voluntary service as a member of the Panel of Counsel. The application was thus neither receivable before the UNAT nor before the UNDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

In declaring the Applicant¡¯s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

In his request for review to the Secretary-General, the Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, at ESCWA. Subsequently, in his appeal to the JAB, the Applicant sought to contest several other decisions. The only decision that the Tribunal is competent to examine is the decision for which administrative review was sought. The evaluation of candidates to a post falls within the discretion of the Secretary-general and the Tribunal will not substitute its views to that of the Secretary-General. However, as...

In view of the evidence available and the Applicant¡¯s refusal to disclose evidence that could exonerate her and that she alone could have produced, the Tribunal considered that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Section 20 of the Convention of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations provides that privileges such as VAT exemption are granted to staff members in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. Section 21 further provides that the United Nations shall cooperate at all times...

From the moment that the new Executive Secretary took up his functions at ESCWA, the Deputy Executive Secretary was no longer competent to decide, on 8 August 2007, to reassign the Applicant. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence that he had received delegation of authority from the Executive Secretary to take the contested decision, which is thus illegal. However, on 16 August 2007, the Executive Secretary confirmed the decision taken on 8 August 2007 by his Deputy. This new decision is legal but it does not have the effect of regularizing ex post facto the decision of 8 August 2007...