Ãå±±½ûµØ

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...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the UNCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the UNCB showed that the UNCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant’s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant’s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the UNCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the UNCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant’s claim for...

The Applicant was informed of the Respondent’s decision not to renew her appointment on 13 May 2015 thus the time to challenge this decision started to run from this date. The Applicant requested management evaluation on 28 August 2015.; A later notice to the Applicant on 30 June 2015 merely affirmed that the earlier decision remained in force.; The application was late in light of staff rule 11.2(c), as it was filed past the sixty-day time limit, and not receivable. UNDT dismissed the application.

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant’s property. In particular, there was no requirement...

No legal implementation of an expired decision: The Tribunal underlines that, after its expiration a decision cannot any longer produce legal effects and therefore cannot be implemented and / or extended and that any such action constitutes itself a breach of procedural fairness.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal’s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The offences alleged in the instant case were of a complex nature and were framed in a manner that required several discrete facts to be established so that a sanction of separation could be justified. Each element of the allegations of misconduct the Administration found to have been established was therefore subject to review. With the account of one person to be weighed against another, the Respondent had to properly consider issues of credibility on the record. There was no indication that the Respondent considered the two possible motives. The Applicant’s case was that the disciplinary...