�鶹��ý

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for �鶹��ýkeeping Operations. The...

The UNDT found that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was wrongful. Assault: A charge of assault is a criminal charge and it was not within UNICEF competence to investigate a criminal offence or a tort alleged to have been committed. Identification of staff members: The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that when an international staff member finds him or herself facing an imminent threat of physical harm or is placed in some other peculiar position especially in a foreign country, it is reasonable to identify oneself as a UN Staff Member. Sexual harassment: It is unusual...

MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The UNDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the UNDT within the prescribed time period. The UNDT found that UNDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the “suspension” of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant’s late filing of her application with the UNDT. Nevertheless, the UNDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of UNIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before UNDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or UNAT.

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation within 60 days of receiving notification of the contested decision, as required by the Staff Rules. The Respondent produced minutes of four meetings held in June 2014, submitting that in the three of the four meetings, the Applicant was informed that her fixed-term appointment would expire and would not be renewed. The Applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes. A hearing on receivability was held at which each of the participants in the June 2014...

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent’s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the UNCB’s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of UNCB’s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller’s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant’s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the UNCB to deny the claim on 23...