ɫ��TV

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants’ post at the S-3 level, the UNDT found that the Applicants’ claims regarding the Administration’s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case—including oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents—the Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the UNDT found that the Administration’s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants’ posts at the S-3 level was...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although UNIFEM/UNDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant’s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, UNIFEM’s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}

It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, UNOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, UNOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

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 observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the UNFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the UN City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant’s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes “that official acts...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision “stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal”. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer’s comments in the Applicant’s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

The Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.