Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant’s intent was to file an application...

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis. 

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

UNAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the UNDT Orders. UNAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. UNAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 – never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization’s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...

The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant’s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with UNDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant’s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...

Prima facie unlawfulness: There is positive evidence from the applicant as to what her supervisor stated and some evidence suggesting ill will on the part of her supervisor. The low test of reasonable arguability is satisfied and accordingly, the prerequisite of prima facie unlawfulness is present. Urgency: The applicant provided reasonable explanations for the delay in contesting the decision and the contract was to expire the day of the hearing; therefore, the urgency requirement is satisfied. Irreparable damage: Mere economic loss can never be irreparable since, if the applicant succeeds in...

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant’s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...