������ҹ������

The UNAT held that, Mr. Lago’s reliance on additional evidence without filing a motion, was inadmissible.

The UNAT confirmed that, there was no evidence that a specific request for an occupational health evaluation, made by Mr. Lago, in an individual capacity to an appropriate official, was refused or ignored. Additionally, Mr. Lago’s requests mirrored his persistent attempts to challenge a perceived wrong, which on its own cannot be perceived as an implied administrative decision.

The UNAT concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of a clear request capable of giving rise to an...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant, by his own admission, failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions.

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The UNAT found...

The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member’s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General’s submissions.

The UNAT also concluded that the UNDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The UNAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his UNDT application and his management evaluation...

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a “jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact” of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...