Administrative decision

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is “serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment” for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in UNEP (part of Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of appointment...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing “non...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or UNIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.

For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.

Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management...

a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant’s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant’s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.

b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the “non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds”. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was “due to lack of funds”. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...