äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

UNAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, UNDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the UNDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the placement of the Appellant on SLWOP enabled him to preserve his pension benefits, granted him the opportunity of remaining a staff member for the purpose of applying as an internal candidate for other positions, and made his relocation possible. UNAT held that there was no abuse of authority or deliberate attempt to harm, as argued by the Appellant, but rather the Organisation adopted a protective approach. Noting that, due to the downsizing exercise related to the Appellant¡¯s post and his reassignment, he was not entitled to SLWFP and his...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. UNAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi¡¯s...

Whether the decision was prejudiced, arbitrary and based on abuse of authority and improper motives: Apart from one letter in which he complained bitterly about the leadership of the CMS, the Applicant did not lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal found this claim to be without merit Whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy/legitimate expectation of renewal: Pursuant to ST/AI/404, mission detail, as any other assignment in the Organization, is at the discretion of the Secretary-General. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Respondent were not of such a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a ¡°hold had been put on¡± the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant¡¯s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a ¡°verbal apology¡± (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant¡¯s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...