�山����

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant’s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent’s request for an award of costs.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar’s performance evaluation an “administrative decision” with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the UNDT did not err in finding her application receivable.  

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar’s performance as “successfully meets performance expectations”, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon’s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline. 

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal.  The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022).  Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case.  With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.
 

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant.  As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The UNAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The UNAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the UNAT.

The UNAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the UNDT. The UNAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

The United Nations Secretary-General in not the Chief Administrative Officer of IOM, and IOM has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General accepting the Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Instead, IOM falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

As the Applicant’s request for management evaluation was not filed before submitting the application to the Dispute Tribunal in the present case, the Tribunal does not have the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction under staff rule 11.2. The challenge against the decision of...