Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore held that the presumption of...

The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant¡¯s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant¡¯s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s...

The Respondent¡¯s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.

After the Applicant¡¯s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration¡¯s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member¡¯s privileges...

The decision to change the Applicant¡¯s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting officers falls under...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed ¡°after¡± she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR¡¯s comments in relation to the Applicant¡¯s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three ¡°off the record¡± emails with the journalist and it was the...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one¡¯s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡±) in Haq and Kane 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...