��ż���

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant’s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission’s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...

The Applicant’s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

In making the final decision on the Applicants’ complaint, the then Director General, UNOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

UNDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of UNCTAD’s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. UNDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. UNDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the UN General Assembly. UNDT also...

UNDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. UNDT held that the Applicant’s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. UNDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant’s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the UNDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Whether the Applicant’s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO… Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant’s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to “proactively assist” the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-UNAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that “a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis” (see Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration’s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant’s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...