Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute (Evan...

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. All three conditions must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. The Applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision on two grounds: a) The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework was inconsistent with staff rule 10.4...

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant¡¯s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.

The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

Given the complexity and significance of the issues presented in this case, the assigned Judge requested the formation of a Three-Judge Panel, in accordance with Article 10.9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Paragraph 4 of Practice Direction No. 1. Pursuant to the authorization of the President of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, the following Judges were appointed to the Panel: Judge Sun Xiangzhuang (Presiding), Judge Joelle Adda, and Judge Sean Wallace.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant¡¯s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary ¡°administrative action¡± would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.

Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.

Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ...

The Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant¡¯s claim that his participation in the Staff Day activities was ¡°essentially private conduct not involving [United Nations] resources¡± or that this was ¡°essentially a voluntary, social event¡±. The requirements for integrity, probity, honesty and truthfulness under the staff regulations and staff rules are not merely ¡°generic obligations¡± but are specifically intended to apply ¡°in all matters affecting [a staff member¡¯s] work and status¡±. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the established facts in this case amount to misconduct on the part of...

Under the definition of fraud, the Tribunal observed that the question of the Applicant¡¯s own benefit is not a required element to establish a finding of fraud. Rather, if found that by a misrepresentation, she intentionally deceived the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days and this actually or potentially caused prejudice to the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days, this is adequate.

The Tribunal found that, in the given circumstances, the Administration acted within the scope of its authority when finding that the Applicant had committed fraud. Accordingly, as per Asghar: (a) the Applicant misrepresented the...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...