Â鶹APP

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four-pronged...

The UNAT held that the staff member had had ample opportunity to comment on her lateral transfer. The UNAT noted that she had been aware of the recommendation to separate her from her First Reporting Officer, against whom she had made a complaint of prohibited conduct, and had had the opportunity to voice her concerns and also had been informed of the reassignment decision nearly a month before she took up the new post.

The UNAT accepted that the responsibilities and job functions of the new post had been commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence, skills, and experience. The UNAT found...

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 found no error in the UNDT¡¯s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The UNAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The UNAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the UNDT¡¯s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The UNAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...

The Applicant failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the selection process for the Post was tainted by any unlawful actions or that he suffered any harm as a result of the contested decision. Accordingly, his application was dismissed and his claim for compensation was rejected.

The assertion that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his candidacy would receive special consideration since he had performed the functions of the Post for five years was misplaced. He did not seriously dispute the fact that the creation of the Head of Office position was not a...

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant¡¯s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant¡¯s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent¡¯s assertion that ¡°the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.¡± The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest...