�山����

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a “jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact” of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

The Tribunal found that, in the present case, there is no dispute that the decision was unilaterally made by the administration and that it involved the exercise of a power or the performance of a statutory instrument. The dispute is on whether the decision adversely affected the rights of the Applicant and produced direct legal consequences.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s argument that “UNOPS not only decided to charge [him], but also to maintain him in an indefinite status of “charged person,” leaving him indeterminately prosecuted; since as—at the time of the Application—he had...

Under “Preliminary Issues”, the Tribunal decided to strike from the record the Applicant’s motion for anonymity and to exceptionally accept the Applicant’s closing submission which exceeded the page limit.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence and up to the required standard of proof.

The Tribunal noted that the sanction was based on four allegations, which it considered separately. After having considered the evidence on record for each allegation, the Tribunal found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that...

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the UNDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the UNDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator’s finding of “prior conduct” were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant’s...

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...

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 lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

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. 

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the UNEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration’s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., “a review of the review”. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report and recommendations...