Â鶹APP

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant¡¯s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member¡¯s terms of employment...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-UNAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant¡¯s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant¡¯s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that UNKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants¡¯ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of UNAT¡¯s reversal of the UNDT¡¯s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted...

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in two acts of misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to...

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to the...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...