�山����

UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the �山����Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, UNAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General “to grant an appointment” to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member’s appointment. Accordingly, UNAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member’s 2016 WAE...

The “reason to believe” must be more than mere speculation or suspicion: it must be reasonable and hence based on facts sufficiently well founded – though of course, not necessarily proved – to rationally incline the mind of the decision maker to the belief. It is clear that the question is one of fact and degree in which the decision maker is bound to act reasonably but which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. It is inaccurate to refer to such a judgment as the exercise of a discretion. If the USG in this case had in fact decided that there was “reason to believe” that the...

UNDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. UNDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

Outcome: Application dismissed as the preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the applicant’s candidature had been given full and fair consideration.

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d’Ecriture et de Communication (“the Centre”), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not “five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989”. These prerequisites did not...

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a “transfer”, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also “suitable” candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...

Having examined the documents and having heard the evidence from the PCO of the selection panel, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no material irregularity in that all relevant procedures and guidelines were followed. The JAB panel’s examination of the facts is not tainted by procedural error or bias. The application before this Tribunal fails and is dismissed.

UNDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which UNDT thus granted leave for the Applicants’ amended submissions. UNDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. UNDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. UNDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant’s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...