Â鶹APP

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...

The contested decision was imposed on the Applicant after finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant threatened to kill other staff members in the Afghanistan Country Office. The crux of the Applicant¡¯s case was that the facts were not established through clear and convincing evidence as the witnesses present during the alleged threats provided inconsistent testimonies, and the evidence was not properly collected and, consequently, was unreliable. Whether the investigation was vitiated by procedural flaws Having reviewed the whole investigation file, which was not...

The Tribunal noted that art. 12.3 of its Statute and art. 30 of its Rules of Procedure limit the scope of applications for interpretation to judgments. Neither the Tribunal¡¯s Statute nor its Rules of Procedure contemplate applications for interpretation with respect to orders. The Tribunal therefore found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...

Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the UNICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant¡¯s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant¡¯s request for...

It is unequivocally incumbent upon the Organization to provide anyone who files a complaint with a properly reasoned decision, especially when the complaint is being rejected. This also enables the staff member to promptly exercise other available options including a challenge to that decision. Endless email communications do not provide staff members with finality of a determination, thus placing them in a precarious situation if they are to challenge such a decision taking note of statutory time-limits.; This Tribunal found that the decision of the former UNICEF Representative PCO not to...

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant¡¯s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

Reason for non-renewal; It is commonplace that once the Respondent gives a staff member a reason for the nonrenewal of contract, such a reason must be supported by facts (Islam 2011-UNAT-115); The fact that the Respondent conceded that he could not demonstrate the lack of funds leading to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract leads the Tribunal to draw the negative inference that UNICEF PCO had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract based on other reasons that were disclosed neither to the Applicant nor to this Tribunal.; Furthermore, the Tribunal does not find that the fact that...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.