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...
The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant’s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant’s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s...
The Respondent’s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant’s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...
The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.
After the Applicant’s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration’s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant’s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member’s privileges...
