ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The Tribunal held that there are two stages in the procedure for the interpretation of a judgment. First, receivability must be determined and secondly if it is receivable whether it should be interpreted. Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether the filing of an appeal should be taken to mean that it is under consideration and therefore debar an applicant from an interpretation. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of an appeal against a judgment by one party to a case constitutes no legal impediment to the other party filing for an interpretation because the filing of an appeal is...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal noted that at the time the application was filed, there was a contestable administrative decision. However, subsequent to the filing, the Respondent overturned its initial finding of ineligibility and by so doing it expunged the administrative decision upon which the application was predicated. Consequently, there was no longer a contestable administrative decision to be considered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant¡¯s father had the legal status of an independent contractor for the WFP Mombasa office, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s father was not a staff member of UNDP and as such, the Applicant has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

The Respondent submitted that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis since the Application was filed more than three years after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the impugned administrative decision, however the Tribunal found the application to be receivable due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Obligations under ST/AI/371: Under paragraph 24 of ST/AI/371/ it was the duty of the Applicant to file an appeal with the JDC within two months of the notification of the disciplinary measure meted out to him. Although the Applicant failed to submit a request for review of his...

Receivability: Noting that the Applicant submitted his Application 3 days before requesting management evaluation of the contested decision and that his request for management evaluation was submitted a month after the deadline for the statutory delay, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable.

In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant¡¯s claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Hearings in disciplinary matters: The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the Judge to decide whether the nature of the case is such that a hearing may be dispensed with. The Judge should consider the following factors: (i) the issues raised and their complexity; (ii) the availability and relevance of witnesses; (iii) the stand of the Applicant and that of Respondent; and (iv) the legal issues involved...

Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

Legitimate expectation: The Tribunal held that while a legitimate expectation can be created by an express promise on the part of the Organization, given the special nature of fixed-term contracts within the Organization an expectation of contract renewal may also be based on the surrounding circumstances, including the practices of the Organization. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal concluded that since there was a practice of renewing the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, he was entitled to expect its continued renewal unless there was a legitimate reason for not renewing the...

Legitimate expectation: While a legitimate expectation can be created by an express promise on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal held that a promise can also be implied from the particular circumstances of a case or from what is held out to an individual. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal. Performance appraisal: When a staff member is given a rating indicating that he/she meets most expectations but that there is room for improvement, there is an implicit undertaking by the Administration that the staff member will be allowed to...

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

A judgment on receivability is not an executable judgment. It is not a judgment on the merits of the case where all issues have been adjudicated upon. An executable judgment is one in which the court determines on the substantive issues of the case having heard and deliberated on the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. In so doing, it ends the dispute before the court which heard it. A judgment on receivability is based on a procedural issue. In the present case, the procedural issue had to do with the timeliness of the application and scope of the court¡¯s jurisdiction where the...

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...