É«¿âTV

UNDT/2013/116

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from UNOPS to WHO and back to UNOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to UNOPS, and her separation from UNOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

As a UNOPS staff member, the Applicant was seconded to WHO to work for the Global Fund to fight Aids Tuberculosis and Malaria (GF). When her secondment to WHO came to an end, she was transferred from UNOPS to WHO, hence separated from UNOPS, and continued to work for the GF which was then an entity under WHO. When the GF became an independent organization under Swiss law, UNOPS agreed to a transfer back of the Applicant to UNOPS, under reimbursable loan to the GF, to allow her to keep her status as a UNJSPF participant. The letter of appointment from UNOPS, signed by the Applicant, contained a special condition according to which the appointment was limited to her assignment under reimbursable loan to the GF. When the Applicant’s contract with the GF was terminated, for reasons of underperformance, UNOPS informed the Applicant that under the reimbursable loan agreement, she had no right to return to UNOPS; however, UNOPS agreed to grant her a one year SLWOP, at no-cost to UNOPS, to allow her to keep her status as an internal candidate when applying for vacancies. When the one-year SLWOP came to an end, it was extended for another three months, after which the Applicant was separated.

Legal Principle(s)

Scope of an application: While an Applicant must properly single out each and every administrative decision which she/he wants to contest, it is also the duty of the Judge to adequately interpret the terms of an application. Receivability ratione temporis: The statutory time-limits start to run when the person was informed of a decision, not when he/she was provided with reasonable belief that there were grounds to request management evaluation; a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision does not lead to the deadline under staff rule 11.2(c) to start anew.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Collas