Article 8.1(c)

The UNAT found that UNICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The UNAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The UNAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The UNAT was of the view that UNICEF’s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the UNDT and the UNAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The UNAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The UNAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The UNAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member’s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...

The UNAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The UNAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The UNAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant’s contractual employment rights.

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

The Applicant was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. He did not.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.