ɫ��TV

UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant’s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant’s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant’s rights were violated when the...

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant’s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the UNDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly’s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate’s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal’s competence to substitute the Administration’s decision to select between suitable candidates.

Since he remained a WFP staff member and pursuant to the above-mentioned Inter-Organization Agreement, the applicant never had a contractual relationship with UNAMID. Only WFP was in a position to render decisions that could affect his terms of appointment. Two decisions were at stake. With respect to the first (WFP decision not to treat him as a D-1), his case could not be heard before UNDT because WFP has recognised ILOAT as judicial review body. Concerning the second (UNAMID decision not to appoint him as Deputy Director), the applicant is not a “staff member” within the meaning of art. 3...

According to the available record, the applicant never received a letter of appointment and no such letter was ever signed by an authorized official. He did not, therefore, become a staff member of the United Nations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the UNDT Statute. It follows that the applicant has no access to the system of administration of justice in its present state. It is noted that the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to investigate the option of granting access to non-staff personnel. Outcome: the application was rejected.

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before UNDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member’s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

The application for deferral of judgment pending the outcome of the appeal is refused. The Respondent is to appoint an official of at least the rank of USG to consider afresh the complaints of the Applicant in respect of the conduct of the SG. The official is to launch an investigation, as appropriate, under staff rule 10.1 if it is reasonable to suspect that the SA acted in such a way as to justify the imposition of a disciplinary measure.

Accountability referral: the USG’s conduct in dealing with the complaint of the Applicant and in giving evidence to the Tribunal is referred to the SG for...

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...