Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2022/095, Qassem

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The UNDT found that the Applicant had not adduced sufficient evidence to connect his illness to the non-renewal decision. The Applicant had not appealed the disability finding and termination on those grounds and subjected it to review by management evaluation. The Administration admitted they made errors in the process; these errors were followed by his illness and termination on the ground of disability. The fact that the Applicant’s final termination was based on disability due to illness was not something that exonerated the Administration from responsibility in the circumstances.  It was doubtful whether due regard was given to regulation 4.4 of article IV of the Staff Regulations which requires that in filling vacancies, regard should be had to the requisite qualifications and experience of persons already in the service of the United Nations. In this case the Administration went outside the available staff pool to increase the capacity of the Jerusalem dispatch office by employing a private contractor.
Accountability referral: Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Tribunal found it appropriate to refer the matter to the Secretary-General pursuant to article 10(8) of the Tribunal’s Statute for special consideration of accountability since the overall impact of the decisions taken seem to run contrary to the Charter of the United Nations in respect of its aim of finding dedicated staff and enhancing their ability to serve the organisation diligently.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision to not renew his appointment beyond 31 March 2020.

Legal Principle(s)

On receivability: art. 34 of UNDT Rules of Procedure provides that time limits “shall not include the day of the event from which the period runs.â€

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

 

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.