Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Dispute Tribunal had no record of any case filed by the Applicant ever having been transferred to it from JDC when the new system of internal justice at the United Nations took force in July 2009.

Taking into consideration the Applicant¡¯s subsequent failure to pursue the claim for over 12 years, and the absence of any record of a case transferred to it, the Tribunal does not consider itself seized of the application filed in 2007, before the JDC.

Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable.

The Applicant¡¯s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the United Nations Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant¡¯s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant¡¯s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration¡¯s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.