Â鶹APP

he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the UNDT. The UNDT found...

The Tribunal concluded that, based on the inconsistencies identified in the complainant¡¯s statement during the investigation, together with the absence of his testimony during the appeal, as the only direct witness apart from the Applicant, the complainant¡¯s version of facts did not corroborate the other witnesses¡¯ statements, except for one witness, who had only an indirect knowledge of the alleged incident. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable link between the alleged physical assault and the existing injury. The Tribunal further concluded that the procedure followed was...

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

Art. 8.1(i) of the UNDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was unlawful based on the Respondent¡¯s admission that ¡°although there were legitimate reasons to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post, the decision to do so, which led to the non-extension of her appointment [¡­] was based, in part, on flawed considerations¡±. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. Remedies The Tribunal noted that the Applicant worked as an Operations Manager, at the NO-C level, in the UNICEF Morocco Country Office. She worked on a fixed-term appointment since February 2010...

The Applicant does not question whether this presentation of the applicable law is comprehensible, but rather intends to reargue his case that the contested selection processes were unlawful. As the Tribunal further finds that paras. 14 to 17, as well as the remaining parts of Judgment No. UNDT/2020/075, are straightforward and easy to understand.

Considering that the Respondent did not contest the merits of the allegations as set out in the applications, the Tribunal found that the contested decisions, i.e., to remove the Applicant from his position, to place him on SLWFP and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. The Tribunal considered that the decision to remove the Applicant from his position was, in fact, subsumed in the ultimate decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, having found that both decisions...

The contested decision having been rescinded by the Administration was, therefore, not a final administrative decision capable of review by this Tribunal, which, consequently, can make no pronouncement as to its legality or as to any effects it may have caused. The Applicant¡¯s claim that the rescission of the contested decision constitutes an admission of its unlawfulness is without merit. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal notes that in this case, the Applicant does not claim any abuse of the current proceedings, nor does the Tribunal observe any such...