Ãå±±½ûµØ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the UNDT and had no standing. On the merits, UNAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the UNDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held...

UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment.  In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

Regarding the Applicant’s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant’s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, UNAT held that, contrary to UNRWA DT’s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member’s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of UNRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. UNAT held...

UNAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, UNDT undertook a final review of the Appellant’s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. UNAT held there was no basis to disagree with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.