The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.
The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.
Finality of disputes: The desirability of finality of disputes in proceedings requires that a party should be able to raise a valid defence of res judicata, which provides that a matter between the same persons, involving the same cause of action, may not be adjudicated twice. Res judicata: Once a matter has been determined, parties should not be able to re-litigate the same issue. An issue, broadly speaking, is a matter of fact or question of law in a dispute between two or more parties which a court is called upon to decide and pronounce itself on in its judgment. The object of the res...
The Respondent submitted that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis since the Application was filed more than three years after the Applicant’s receipt of the impugned administrative decision, however the Tribunal found the application to be receivable due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Obligations under ST/AI/371: Under paragraph 24 of ST/AI/371/ it was the duty of the Applicant to file an appeal with the JDC within two months of the notification of the disciplinary measure meted out to him. Although the Applicant failed to submit a request for review of his...
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...
Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.
Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...
The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. UNDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal’s decision, and thus does not require clarification.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-UNAT-457 and Nartey 2015-UNAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.
