�鶹��ý

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that “[s]eparation as a result of … expiration of appointment … shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules”. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

.Outcome: The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant USD10,000 in compensation for emotional harm.

Outcome: For Applicant (relief to follow).

The UNDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The UNDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The UNDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

The main legal issues in this case are whether the Applicant and the Organization had entered into a contract and whether the Applicant is entitled to access to the system of justice of the United Nations. The Tribunal found that no binding contract of employment was concluded by the Applicant and the Organization. The Applicant was not a staff member at the time the decision was made not to select her for the vacancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the UNDT. The UNDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The UNDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...