The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.
The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although UNIFEM/UNDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant’s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, UNIFEM’s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...
The Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.
Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...
Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...
Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...
The Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal’s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...
