Â鶹APP

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the UNCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

UNAT held that the UNDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. UNAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-091) from the present case. UNAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

UNAT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. UNAT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. UNAT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before UNDT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant¡¯s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

UNDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

The Applicant¡¯s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the Â鶹APP would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. UNON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

One of the eligibility requirements was five years of continuous service with the Secretariat, excluding any service with separately administered funds or programmes. The Respondent asserted that for part of the relevant period the Applicant was employed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Â鶹APP Secretariat and the Â鶹APP Development Programme, a separately administered programme. The UNDT found that the Applicant was converted by the Â鶹APP to a permanent appointment in November 2010, which meant that the Organization had accepted that he had at...

The UNDT found that the Applicant was unable to prove that the selection process was biased against him and that the consideration of his candidacy was marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or resulted in a failure to give him proper consideration. The application was dismissed.

The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The UNDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...