Search

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed “after” she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR’s comments in relation to the Applicant’s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three “off the record” emails with the journalist and it was the...

The decision to change the Applicant’s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant’s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant’s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant’s reporting officers falls under...

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one’s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) in Haq and Kane 2019-UNAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...

The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS’s decision does not refer to the specific...

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant’s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant’s grievances about the selection process were not...

The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel’s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not “absurd or perverse” It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

Appeals dismissed, UNDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...

Appeals dismissed, UNDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, UNDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

UNAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the UNSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of “incapacitation” is a purely medical...

Appeals dismissed, UNDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable, the ICSC decision...

UNAT held the staff member’s appeal of the UNDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the UNDT was erroneous. Additionally, UNAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the UNDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

UNAT agreed with the UNDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member’s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. UNAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of UNDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the UNDT is not receivable. UNAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal’s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by UNDT and by which UNDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got’s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by UNDT, UNAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour’s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT in Mr Dabbour’s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. UNAT held that there was nothing to indicate why UNRWA DT did...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because UNDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in fact when it found that certain UNAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited UNAT precedents.

UNAT held that UNDT’s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that UNOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.