Â鶹APP

It was not unreasonable to infer that on 3 July 2015, having gone through the rigors of a criminal judicial proceeding and having been acquitted of all charges, the Applicants became aware that there may have been breaches of the applicable rules governing their arrest and detention as Â鶹APP staff members and the waiver of their immunities. The Applicants¡¯ causes of action in relation to the remedies for the alleged breaches of the procedures under A/63/331 and ST/AI/299 arose on 3 July 2015. Accordingly, pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c) the Applicants were, therefore, required to seek...

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

Since a PIP was not put in place prior to the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, she could not rely on section 10.5 of ST/AI/2010/5 for the renewal of her contract. The Administration extended the Applicant¡¯s contract several times despite her refusal to accept the offers of contract extension. These extensions were deemed contrary to a strict application of the requirements of section 4.4 of ST/AI 2013/1 and inconsistent with administrative regularity. However, MONUSCO continued to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract in the hope of persuading her to cooperate with the PIP. It was...

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and that there was no exercise...

Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

UNDT held that the Settlement Agreement was properly before UNDT for its enforcement. UNDT noted that there was no special procedure prescribed by the UNDT Statute or Rules of Procedure or even by any of its Practice Directions for an applicant to bring an application for the enforcement of a Settlement Agreement. UNDT held that there was bad faith on part of the Respondent in regard to the Settlement Agreement by the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. UNDT found that: a. The MONUSCO Administration exhibited bad faith during the negotiations by not informing the Applicant until after he...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 ¨C June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...