Â鶹APP

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The UNDT found, on the one hand, that UNAMA decision to close the case given the conclusions of the investigation constituted a valid exercise of discretion by the Administration, and that the Organization did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing the full investigation report with her. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that UNAMA failed to take diligent action with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaint and that it incurred inordinate delays both in reviewing and assessing the Applicant¡¯s complaint and in setting up a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation into her...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The UNDT reviewed the procedure followed by the ASG/OHRM to reach her decision to close the complaint, and found that although the Chief, JMS, did not follow the correct procedure of consulting with the UN Medical Director about the request for the Applicant not to attend work, it was open to the ASG/OHRM to conclude that the conduct of the Chief, JMS, did not warrant any disciplinary or administrative action. Indeed, the Tribunal considered that the Chief, JMS, faced a complex situation, which included the Applicant¡¯s illness and the potential for disrupting patients of the JMS clinic. The...

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

Taking into consideration the Respondent¡¯s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.