Â鶹APP

The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and UNISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that UNISFA¡¯s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The Tribunal observed that the Organization had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment following his being declared persona non grata in Sudan. In practical terms, this could have necessitated redeployment of post, reassignment, administrative leave or, ultimately, non-extension of the appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s claim to remain in office in the country where he was unwelcome was, in any event, unfounded. The Tribunal, further found that the Organization had fulfilled its legal obligations towards the Applicant and the impugned decision was lawful. Consequently, the...

UNDT accepted the Applicant¡¯s witnesses¡¯ as evidence as relevant and admissible. The witnesses generally addressed theatmosphere in which the Â鶹APP Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) staff in Abyei functioned, including the reaction of the principal chiefs of the Dinka tribe to policy changes which they did not like. This raised issues to be considered in assessing the complaints of Complainants 1 and 2. Complainants 1 and 2 did not sign or indicate the veracity of their statements. This failure to authenticate the statements created doubt as to the veracity of the statements...

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review preparatory steps of an administrative decision and rejected the application as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the record before it, there was no dispute that the decision to abolish the post the Applicant was occupying and, consequently, the decision not to extend his appointment originated from the restructuring approved in the 2016/17 budget for UNISFA by the General Assembly. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination against him. As such, the contested decision was taken in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in Â鶹APP Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant¡¯s rights and obligations...