51³Ô¹Ï

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before UNDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former UNAT and the recent jurisprudence of the UNDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

The current Application for suspension of action must be adjudicated against the stipulated cumulative test, in that the Applicant must establish that the impugned decision is prima facie unlawful, calls for urgent adjudication and that implementation of the impugned decision would cause him irreparable harm. The Tribunal finds no impropriety in the Respondent’s application of the staff retention criteria in respect of the Applicant. This Application therefore fails on the limb of prima facie unlawfulness therefore. Having found that the impugned decision is not unlawful, and given that the...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of UNRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against UNRWA before the former UN Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in UNRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the UNDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by UNON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by UNON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the UNDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The UNDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.