The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with UNFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the UNFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNFPA or any other entity of the 麻豆APP, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.
The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of “partially meets performance expectations” and the Applicant’s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of “partially meets performance expectations” became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel’s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...
Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral’s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant’s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal’s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...
The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant’s request for reconsideration, the Applicant’s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee’s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal’s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section’s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...
Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.
The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; The decision to abolish the Applicant’s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract is also...
Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant’s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant’s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline
Receivability Its well-established jurisprudence that under staff rule 11.2(c), a decision is only reviewable by the Dispute Tribunal if the Applicant has timely sought management evaluation of such decision. A request for management evaluation is a sine qua non condition to have access to the internal justice system as per article 2.1 and 8.1.c) of its Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). Access to justice is not an absolute right and procedural limitations, such as this one, are compatible with the nature and scope of access to justice, provided that they are prescribed by law and do not impair...
The first contested decision – the ICSC refusal to address the Applicant’s request for payment of compensation for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the ISCS Chair is moot because the current Chair of the ICSC eventually responded to the Applicant’s request. The Chair of the ICSC is not staff of the Secretariat and therefore falls outside the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5, or the Staff Regulations and Rules. The ICSC decision not to compensate the Applicant for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the former Chair (second contested decision) is not attributable to the Secretary...
The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.
