ɫ��TV

The UNAT noted that in its calculation of the reduction of the beneficiary’s retirement benefit, the Pension Fund had determined the rate of the overall cost-of-living adjustment due to benefits in accordance with the movement in the US consumer price index since the date of the last adjustment to be 6.4 per cent. The UNAT observed that the Fund had then prorated the overall adjustment rate in proportion to the length of time the beneficiary’s retirement benefit had been in payment and had determined that the inflationary adjustment due to him was 7/12 of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent...

The UNAT held that UNITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member’s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. UNITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member’s position. The UNDT did not err in finding that UNITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The UNAT also affirmed the UNDT’s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness’s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member’s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The Tribunal took note of the Applicant’s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was “partially resident” in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...

Although the Applicant disagrees with the assessment made during the interview as to whether she satisfied particular competency requirements and regarding her overall suitability for the post, the interview panel was entitled to come to its own conclusions regarding the Applicant’s suitability.

The Tribunals have consistently held that it is not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the hiring manager or the decision-maker. The Tribunal's review is limited to ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that there was no improper...

Bien que la candidature soit en désaccord avec l'évaluation faite lors de l'entretien quant à savoir si elle satisfaisait à des exigences de compétence particulière et quant à son aptitude générale au poste, le comité d'entretien était en droit de tirer ses propres conclusions concernant l'aptitude de la candidature.

Les tribunaux ont toujours soutenu qu'il ne leur appartient pas de substituer leur jugement à celui du responsable du recrutement ou du décideur. Leur contrôle se limite à vérifier que la décision a été prise conformément aux règles et procédures applicables et qu'elle n'a été...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant’s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant’s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s request for management evaluation pertains solely to the decision to withdraw his offer of employment based on a negative reference verification. Accordingly, the only decision that could be subject to a suspension of action order is the withdrawal of the offer. The Applicant’s impending separation from service, however, is a natural consequence of the temporary appointment he voluntarily accepted. It is not part of the contested decision. As a result, the application is not receivable insofar as it seeks to challenge the “implementation of [the Applicant’s] separation from...

The UNAT noted with concern that the JAB had been dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration; it was also alarming that the Administration had dismantled the JAB with no successor in place, denying the staff members access to justice in the interim. The UNAT found that there were no judgments or decisions from the JAB against which the UNAT could evaluate the requested relief. The UNAT held that the motions had become moot as the JAB had since been reconstituted and a panel to consider the requests for suspension...

The Tribunal found the application to be receivable on the basis that a negative performance rating does produce legal consequences for the affected staff member and is reviewable.

In the Tribunal’s view, the Respondent failed to show that the USG engaged the Applicant in a proper performance discussion or provided sufficient feedback of a performance shortcoming as required by secs. 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of ST/AI/2021/4. he Tribunal found no evidence of a discussion between the USG and the Applicant which could be classified as a performance milestone discussion, one which sets out clear targets...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...