Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Field Office (¡°CFO¡±) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, ¡°Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter¡±. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of ¡°D¡±. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant¡¯s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...