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 Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.
As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...
The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.
Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days’ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.
The UNAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the UNDT. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly dismissed AAP’s...
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 Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.
There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...
The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.
The UNAT also rejected Mr...
Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment.
The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...
In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with UNOPS.
Furthermore, UNOPS and UNGSC are two different entities of the Ăĺ±±˝űµŘsystem. While the Applicant was a former staff member of UNOPS, he had no employment relationship with UNGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with UNGSC.
The Applicant acknowledged that “there...
The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.
To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to “suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation” (art. 8.3 of its Statute).
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s request...
