Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

The UNDT found that the Respondent had failed to fully comply with his obligations under ST/SGB/2008/5 with respect to the Applicant’s complaints and that the Respondent had violated the Applicant’s rights by not promptly providing her with a summary of findings and conclusions and by not investigating allegations of misconduct that impacted on her. Action to be taken under sec 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5: Depending on the circumstances of the case, section 5.14 may have two elements that must be satisfied by the Organization. The first component of section 5.14 is the review and assessment of the...

The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The UNDT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.

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 Peacekeeping Operations. The...

The UNDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant had failed to take the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. However, it observed that while failure to request management evaluation denies the Applicant access to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at present, the Applicant was never formally notified in writing of the administrative decision or the reasons therefore. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the situation in this case arose through an alleged mistake of the Administration and through no fault of the Applicant.

The UNDT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months’ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member’s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...

Impartiality of a judge is determined by two tests, subjective and objective. (Campos). The UNDT considered that the request for recusal was based on mere fact and no such conflict of interest or professional relationship existed between the honourable Judge and the two Thai nationals named.

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the administrative decision after the 60 day deadline for requesting a management evaluation had passed. Her Application was therefore not receivable as the Tribunal is not competent to extend the deadline for a request for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of UN police force (UNPOL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the UN Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action – urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

The burden of establishing bias or the perception of bias lies with the Applicant once the Respondent has made a minimal showing of regularity in the recruitment process. The Applicant must establish with clear and convincing evidence that he was not given full and fair consideration for the vacancy. Whilst the Tribunal was surprised that a person in the Applicant’s position and with the Applicant’s experience should not be recommended, it was unable to conclude that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration, particularly in view of the fact that some 13 other candidates...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (UNDT/2012/029) – merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

A review of other similar cases revealed that only one other staff member was separated for illegal possession/use of drugs, and that was a far more serious case. The sanction in the present case was disproportionate in the light of the comparators. UNDT endorsed Sow. Equality of treatment in the workplace is a core principle which must be applied by the Secretary-General when imposing disciplinary sanctions.