ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

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 lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration¡¯s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation and the subject matter complained of does not include an administrative decision. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the final non-selection decision, which was required to contest it. She only requested management evaluation of the decision not to invite her to a competency-based interview.

The Applicant seeks to contest a preliminary step in a selection process, which can only be challenged in the context of a final selection decision. It is a premature contestation of...

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to UNDP. UNAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

The Secretary-General appealed UNDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. UNAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

UNAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before UNDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...