Â鶹APP

The best interests of UNHCR were clearly not served by the removal of the Applicant. It is unfortUNATe that some members of the UNHCR senior management sought to hide behind the veil of acting in the Organization¡¯s best interests to act in their own self-interest. The Tribunal therefore found on that score that the Respondent¡¯s explanation were a mere afterthought which was only spun to defend an action that was clearly lacking in due process and constituted an unfair and highhanded removal of the Applicant and abuse of official discretion. The Tribunal was not in any doubt that the removal of...

Full and fair consideration: In the absence of concrete, convincing evidence, the mere fact that it is possible, theoretically, to alter/tamper a written test will not suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that an Applicant¡¯s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Also, where no one of the people involved in the administration of the test had a motive to manipulate it, the Tribunal will not find that the decision had been influenced by extraneous factors. The burden of proof in these matters lies on the Applicant. Good management practice: The Administration should take measures...

The Applicant failed to file a request for management evaluation of the nonrenewal decision within the applicable deadline. This claim was not receivable. The Applicant had in his management evaluation request of 12 July 2015 already accomplished the requirements set out in CF/EXD/2012-007 in relation to his complaints of bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of authority against his supervisor and the UNICEF Country Representative. As held in Kadri, the Applicant was entitled to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his application. The Applicant¡¯s claims in relation to the...

The irregularities in the investigative process were egregious and warranted compensation. In addition, during the three years the investigation was delayed, the subject was no longer with the Organization, making it not possible to convene a new investigation.Relief: The Tribunal found the Applicant suffered emotional harm in having to prosecute his complaint for three years, harm to his reputation, and that such harm was demonstrated by the Applicant at trial and observed by the Judge as trier of fact. The UNDT found the decision of the responsible official to close the case was improper as...

Temporary reassignment: The characteristic of a temporary reassignment is its limited duration. From the outset, it is clear that it has an expiration date and that, unless renewed by a subsequent discretionary decision, it will come to an end naturally on the date specified for this purpose. The natural outcome of a temporary assignment is the staff member¡¯s return to his/her original duties. Accordingly, a staff member on temporary reassignment has no entitlement or legal expectancy to have such reassignment extended. The decision not to extend a temporary reassignment is within the...

The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant¡¯s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant¡¯s place, her...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a communication conveying discontent to management will amount to a management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the competent authority, which is specifically empowered to look into a contested decision to evaluate and consider whether it has been made pursuant to the administrative issuances of the...

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

The Tribunal found that UNMISS was incorrect when it restricted applicants to the TJO to staff already employed by UNMISS since the Applicant was an internal candidate. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for the TJO was unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post. The Tribunal found the application receivable and that the contested decision not to find the Applicant eligible for the TJO and the related decision to continue the selection process were unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to a full...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...