The contested decision was linked to the decision to bar the applicant from entering the VIC in October 1999, when he was no longer a staff member of UNOV. Hence, the decision to deny his counsel access to the applicant’s OSF did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The application was thus neither receivable before the UNAT nor before the UNDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.
Outcome: Application dismissed, but award of a nominal compensation of USD 1,000 for procedural deficiencies in the selection process.
The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant’s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...
In accordance with staff rule 7.6(e), the Applicant’s official departure date from Vienna was on Sunday, 14 March 2010, a non-working day in Vienna. Pursuant to section 5.2 of ST/AI/2006/4, had he departed on that date, he would not have been entitled to an additional day of annual leave to compensate for official travel on a non-working day. The fact that the Applicant chose to travel on a working day for reasons of personal convenience shall not have the effect of granting him a benefit to which he would not have been entitled had he travelled on the official date of travel.
Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...
The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months’ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...
Language of examination: Pursuant to section 5.6 of ST/AI/2010/7, candidates may choose to take the oral examination in either English or French.Alternative compensation: Given that the placement of the Applicant on the roster of successful candidates does not guarantee that she will be selected for a position, and thus does not carry appointment or promotion, the Tribunal is not required to set an amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the specific performance ordered.Compensation and evidence of injury: While the Applicant seeks compensation for the...
Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...
Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.
Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel’s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...
