Â鶹APP

The UNAT held that UNITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. UNITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The UNDT did not err in finding that UNITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The UNAT also affirmed the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The Tribunal took note of the Applicant¡¯s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was ¡°partially resident¡± in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...

Although the Applicant disagrees with the assessment made during the interview as to whether she satisfied particular competency requirements and regarding her overall suitability for the post, the interview panel was entitled to come to its own conclusions regarding the Applicant¡¯s suitability.

The Tribunals have consistently held that it is not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the hiring manager or the decision-maker. The Tribunal's review is limited to ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that there was no improper...

Bien que la candidature soit en d¨¦saccord avec l'¨¦valuation faite lors de l'entretien quant ¨¤ savoir si elle satisfaisait ¨¤ des exigences de comp¨¦tence particuli¨¨re et quant ¨¤ son aptitude g¨¦n¨¦rale au poste, le comit¨¦ d'entretien ¨¦tait en droit de tirer ses propres conclusions concernant l'aptitude de la candidature.

Les tribunaux ont toujours soutenu qu'il ne leur appartient pas de substituer leur jugement ¨¤ celui du responsable du recrutement ou du d¨¦cideur. Leur contr?le se limite ¨¤ v¨¦rifier que la d¨¦cision a ¨¦t¨¦ prise conform¨¦ment aux r¨¨gles et proc¨¦dures applicables et qu'elle n'a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant¡¯s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant¡¯s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the Â鶹APP is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Â鶹APP is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the Â鶹APP and not for the personal benefit of the...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.