51�Թ�

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant’s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

The first contested decision – the ICSC refusal to address the Applicant’s request for payment of compensation for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the ISCS Chair is moot because the current Chair of the ICSC eventually responded to the Applicant’s request. The Chair of the ICSC is not staff of the Secretariat and therefore falls outside the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5, or the Staff Regulations and Rules. The ICSC decision not to compensate the Applicant for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the former Chair (second contested decision) is not attributable to the Secretary...

Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant’s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration’s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant’s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the UNDT was not receivable.

The Applicant was not a staff member at the time of the contested decision, and her former employment was with a different entity than that concerned by the administrative decision under review in this case. No nexus existed between the Applicant’s former employment with the Organization and the administrative decision under review, and the Applicant has therefore no standing to challenge this decision. The cancellation of a selection process is not a challengeable administrative decision. In this case, the canceled job opening was eventually re-advertised and the Applicant eventually selected...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section. The Ethics...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of “successfully meets performance expectations”, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.

The Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment. As the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment which expired, staff rules 9.6(e) and (f) do not apply. Therefore, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain the Applicant. The application is therefore not receivable.