ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. UNDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

UNDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. UNDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU’s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. UNDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...

The applicant was given the opportunity of providing arguments and submissions which may tend to show that he had an arguable case. He has failed to do so. There was ample evidence before the Secretary-General to support a finding of serious misconduct. The internal disciplinary investigations complied with the principles of natural justice. There were no procedural irregularities in the investigation and the sanction of summarily dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

UNDT noted that it was established that UNAMI decided not to renew the Applicant’s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. UNDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. UNDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant’s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the UN staff as of 18 August 2009. UNDT...

UNDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. UNDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant’s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General’s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. UNDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant’s reassignment, if implemented, would...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant’s cases had been transferred to the UNDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2009/005.

Unlawfulness: There has to be evidence to establish that, at the very least, it is probable that the non-renewal decision of itself was unlawful. Irreparable harm: Harm is irreparable if it can be shown that suspension of the action is the only way to ensure that the applicant’s rights are observed. Although the applicant has expectation of fair treatment, any breach of due process in this case is capable of being compensated financially or by correction of the performance record. Should he be ultimately vindicated, he can get compensation for any losses arising out of defects in the...

UNDT noted that a request for suspension of action can only be granted in cases where all criteria have been satisfied: prima facie unlawfulness, urgency, and irreparable damage. UNDT held that the contested decision in the present case did not appear to be prima facie unlawful. UNDT accordingly did not further examine whether the matter was urgent and/or whether the implementation of the contested decision would cause irreparable damage. UNDT also held that the decision of non-renewal was not an improper exercise of discretion. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the non-renewal...

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.

The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending UNAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise UNAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former UNAT are res iudicata.

According to the Organization’s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ‘all staff e-mail’, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 UNDT...

UNDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the UNDT. UNDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to UNDT and considered by same. UNDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.