Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer.  The UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response.  The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036...

The UNAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous UNAT judgment.

The UNAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the UNAT. The UNAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The UNAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.

A a holder of an Ãå±±½ûµØVolunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

UNAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment.  UNAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

/

UNAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. UNAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before UNAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. UNAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...