The UNDT found that the Applicant’s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The UNDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The UNDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

The Tribunal concluded that there were procedural violations that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. The Tribunal ordered rescission of the decision or compensation of six months’ net base salary in lieu of rescission. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal concluded that the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and the subsequent disciplinary process were in breach of the procedures required by ST/SGB/2008/5 and the IGO Guidelines for Conducting Investigations and that these procedural errors were sufficiently grave to render the...

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...

Binding force of UNAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the “Judgment” section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...

Recalling the above-mentioned Appeals Tribunal’s ruling and the requirements set therein for the reconsideration ordered by it, the Tribunal found that the impugned decisions were unlawful on several accounts, but primarily in that (a) the Applicants were not considered individually in light of their proficiencies, qualifications, competencies, conduct and transferrable skills, and (b) the decisions were based on the limited mandate of ICTY alone, to the exclusion of all other relevant factors. Accordingly, the Tribunal rescinded the impugned decisions, ordered the matter to be remanded once...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. UNDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal’s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The UNDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The UNDT rejected the Applicant’s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (“RSG”) for the Investments of the UNJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The UNDT rejected the Applicant’s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision was made following the correct procedure and was based on well-founded evidence. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed. Denial of claim based on evidentiary grounds: The Tribunal observed that in assessing the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the principle issue for the ABCC was whether the injury resulted as a natural incident of performing duties on behalf of the United Nations. This was a question of fact to be established by evidence. The Tribunal held that the functions of ABCC include making recommendations on claims for...