Reasons

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant’s First Reporting Officer’s (“FRO”) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of “Successfully Meets Expectations”, the comments of the Applicant’s Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant “consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively” and commending her “ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

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 the Secretariat).

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

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...

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.

Regarding the decision to not convene a fact-finding panel, the Tribunal recalled its jurisprudence which indicates that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a staff member had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case, the Tribunal, concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to support his claim.

In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal also referred to its settled jurisprudence which indicates that there is no right to FWA. The Tribunal, rather, observed that a denial of FWA...

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

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.