�鶹��ý

Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

The disciplinary sanction was based on the finding that he had made a material misrepresentation on several personal history forms when applying for jobs. The UNDT found that it has been established that on three occasions—sometime in or around October 2011, on 25 March 2005 and on 21 February 2007—the Applicant’s personal history forms incorrectly indicated he did not have “relatives employed by a public international organization”, whereas his brother was in fact employed by the United Nations until 8 December 2008. The UNDT found, however, that the established facts did not amount to...

UNDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. UNDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant’s contract should not be renewed. UNDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member’s contract. UNDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party’s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

On receivability: Applying the test of Gabaldon, even though all the conditions of staff rule 4.8 had not been fulfilled, the Applicant had locus standi and was legitimately entitled to similar rights as those of staff members and that the Organization must be regarded as having extended to her the protection of its administration of justice system. She held a valid contract, the scope of which must be determined when other issues are considered. The reach and application of Gabaldon is indeed limited and does not entitle the Applicant to take full benefit of the Staff Regulations regarding...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant’s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not...

The Applicant was invited to and successfully passed the assessment process, during which the assessment panel evaluated his technical skills and competencies through a written test and a competency-based interview, pursuant to sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. As a consequence, the Applicant was placed on the list of recommended candidates by the hiring manager for review by the CRC, pursuant to secs. 7.6 and 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. Both parties agree that this evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.; In reviewing the selection process, the CRC...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that clear and convincing evidence was obtained which was consistent with the Applicant’s sexually exploiting local women and the impugned decision was well-founded. The Applicant had claimed that he had given his username and password to other staff members therefore, he could not be attributed the accessing and storing of the material. The Tribunal did accept this. The Applicant admitted that he had downloaded and installed the cracked software that had caused pornographic material to appear on his computer. He neither named any person with whom he shared the password nor...

Receivability The Tribunal considered that the Applicant was not challenging individual non-selection decisions directly but rather challenged the Administration’s alleged failure to give her priority consideration for vacant posts before terminating her fixed-term appointment, which is required under staff rule 9.6(e) (see Timothy). Therefore, the Tribunal found the application receivable and examined the merits of the case. Restructuring process At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant worked as Humanitarian Affairs Officer (HAO) at the P-4 level. The Tribunal noted that, in OCHA...