The Tribunal held:
1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.
2. The Applicant’s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.
3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.
The decision to have the Applicant consent to an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") was reasonably taken in the interest of the Organization.
The Tribunal held that there was no unlawful behavior by UNHCR in following and implementing the recommendations arising from the IME. The decision was rational, procedurally correct and appropriate.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC’s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The UNAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the UNAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...
The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal’s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-UNAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...
ST/AI/400 explicitly applies to the abandonment of post and sets out the process to be followed under such circumstances. The Applicant's case is not one of abandonment of post but one of unauthorized absence under ST/AI/2005/3. The mere submission of a medical certificate in support of an absence does not suffice. Said certificate must be approved by the respective Medical Service. This has not been so in the Applicant's case, whose medical situation will be examined by a Medical Board pursuant to ST/AI/2019/1, and her placement on SLWOP is not a violation of her rights.
