��ż���

If the scope of understanding of what the mandatory enrollment-related fees are under sec. 3.1(a) were to be limited in accordance with the Respondent’s submissions, this should therefore have been reflected in the relevant legal framework. This is, however, not the case. Under the plain meaning rule, if the Respondent, namely the Secretary-General, wants the situation to be regulated as contended by his Counsel, this should therefore also clearly and unambiguously follow from the relevant legal framework, in particular ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, which the Secretary-General has promulgated himself...

Management evaluation not requested within the statutory deadline. Application not receivable ratione materiae.

Management evaluation of the decision concerning Applicant's share of contribution for medical insurance not filed within the statutory deadline. Consequently, this part of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Application is receivable concerning the decision concerning the Applicant's share of contribution for the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF). Art. 25.b)i) of the UNJSPF Regulations clearly provides that contributions during SLWOP are paid either 1) in full by the staff member, 2) in full by the employing Organization or 3) partly by the staff member and...

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.

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...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application...

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 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...

Non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment due to the lack of funding The proffered reason for the non-renewal is supported by evidence. The post encumbered by the Applicant was funded by funds received under service level agreements, and the Applicant’s salary in 2016-19 were fully covered by a specific service level agreement, whose contributions were reduced to the extent that they were insufficient to cover the Applicant’s salary. The Applicant questioned why other staff members were not affected by the reduction of funding, but none of the other staff members’ salary was fully...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant’s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...