51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT held that the staff member’s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by UNRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, UNAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, UNAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

UNDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant’s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the UNDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, UNDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant’s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, UNDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant’s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant’s complaints against ECA’s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 – Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

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...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although UNIFEM/UNDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant’s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, UNIFEM’s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}