Â鶹APP

The issue of disclosing an investigation report is not new. It was, in fact, considered by this Tribunal in its judgments Adorma UNDT/2010/205 and Haydar UNDT/2012/201 as well as by UNAT in judgment Ivanov 2015-UNAT-519. In the latter, UNAT entered into consideration of the non-disclosure of an investigation report despite the fact that the Secretary-General had questioned the UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction over such a decision. The Organisation¡¯s obligations as stipulated in ST/SGB/2008/5 are an integral part of a staff member¡¯s contractual rights. They include the obligations of the Organisation and...

UNDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. UNDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant¡¯s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal¡¯s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration¡¯s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

The Tribunal understands that in light of HR¡¯s emails, the Applicant could have reasonably understood by mistake that his contract would be further extended pending proceedings in his cases before the Dispute Tribunal. As the Applicant did not request management evaluation within that deadline and waited until 22 June 2019, his application is not receivable.

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related