Íæż½ã½ã

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant’s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

UNDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. UNDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant’s former employment and the contested decision. UNDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, to comply with procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General’s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...

At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants’ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. UNDT dismissed the application.

UNDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. UNDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

UNDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

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...

UNDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. UNDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. UNDT therefore held that the presumption of...