�山����

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The UNDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The UNDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he...

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal’s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-UNAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mr. Y., no complaint was ever received by OAIS, and that, hence, the application before the Tribunal was not receivable on that matter as no contestable administrative decision was ever taken with respect to Mr. Y. With regard to the Applicant’s second colleague, Mrs. X., the Tribunal found that an email the Applicant had sent to an UNFPA Human Resources Associate in August 2013 did not meet the formal requirements of a complaint, as it was not addressed to OAIS pursuant to UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the UNDT Statute...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.