Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the UNDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General’s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General’s appeal cannot succeed. UNDT's finding that UN-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

UNAT considered two appeals by the staff member of UNDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. UNAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before UNDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, UNAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. UNAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. UNAT held that there was no statutory...

Since the Applicant only pointed out that the non-implementation of the indicated provision had restricted her options to be selected for posts in some duty stations, she failed to identify any such administrative decision. The Tribunal stressed that a selection process involves a series of steps which lead to an administrative decision. It stated that only if the Applicant contested the outcome of a selection process for a specific post (the administrative decision), would the Tribunal be competent to hear and pass judgement on her application.

The Tribunal rescinds the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant and Orders: the reinstatement of the Applicant; that the Applicant be paid her salaries and entitlements from the date of her summary dismissal to the date of this judgment with interest at 8%; that the Applicant be compensated for the breach of her right to due process at the rate of two months net base salary; that compensation be fixed, should the Secretary-General decide in the interest of the Administration not to perform the obligation to reinstate the Applicant, at two years’ net base salary at the rate in effect on...

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the UNDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent’s letter of 6 May 2015.

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal’s Statute.

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...