�鶹��ý

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

The Applicant’s request for RC to prepare questions for the ACABQ members to ask the USG/OSAA about the issues that the Senior Managers had been contesting in the office was a breach of staff regulation 1.2(i) which provides that “[s]taff members shall exercise the utmost discretion with regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate to any Government, entity, person or any other source any information known to them by reason of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made public, except as appropriate in the normal course of their...

The Trinunal found that the Applicant’s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant’s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant’s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant’s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration’s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The UNAT found...

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...