�鶹��ý

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the “contested administrative decision” at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and the Applicant had to leave Pakistan at the explicit request of the Government, the Organization had no other solution but to consider alternative administrative arrangements, such as placing her on SLWFP or SLWOP, to address her situation. The Tribunal found that UNICEF was under no obligation to reassign the Applicant to another post because i) the circumstances of her departure from Pakistan were self-created and ii) she was not interested in continuing working with UNICEF beyond the expiration of her fixed-term appointment. It further considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep the Applicant on pay status whilst not performing work for the Organization until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment on 30 September 2018. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was a lawful exercise of administrative discretion.