�山����

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a “staff member”. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the UNDT’s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. UNAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant’s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. UNAT held that the application was...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. UNAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. UNAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

On the Appellant’s claim that the UNDT Judge was biased, UNAT held that the Appellant’s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant’s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, UNAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. UNAT...

UNAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. UNAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT for proper...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant’s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...