Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal found that there could not be an absolute and general rule that the failure to give reasons amounts to an unlawful exercise of the discretion not to renew. Nor should there be a rule that reasons should never be given. Having found that the decision was not prima facie illegal, the requirements provided for in Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure to grant suspension of action were not met.Outcome: the application was dismissed.

UNDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to UNDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. UNDT rejected the application.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant’s post was a valid exercise of the Organization’s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant UNDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant conceded, in his closing submission, that the distribution and storage of pornographic material using the UNDP equipment constituted misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the characterization of this charge settled and did not go on to examine it. On due process, the Tribunal found that the investigation was hasty and afforded the; Applicant little opportunity to prepare for his case. On proportionality, the Tribunal held that the lack of due process shown on the part of the Respondent while investigating the Applicant must necessarily count to...

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...