Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.
The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The UNDT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...
Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members’ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.
The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the UNDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...
At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...
Identification of contested decisions: An application must properly single out each and every administrative decision that an applicant wishes to contest in a clear and concise manner, failing which the application could be deemed irreceivable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has an inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested.Promises binding on the Administration: Where a staff member claims that he or she had a legitimate expectation arising from a promise made by the Administration, such expectation must...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...
The Applicant’s post was one of 45 posts earmarked in November 2007 for abolition by December 2008. It is not contested that the 45 posts for abolition which included the Applicant’s post were extended on GTA funding through June 2011. In the present Application on the merits, the Applicant needs to prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Retention Panel was unfair in its evaluation of him and was discriminatory. Not only did he fail in his earlier suspension of action application to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged...
