51ÁÔÆæ

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his right to participate as a candidate for leadership in the UNSU through a free and fair election process and his right to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not...

Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The UNDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

Improper motives: Whilst it is permissible for the drafters of a job opening to deviate from previously established evaluation criteria where circumstances demand it, the deviation must not be actuated by bad faith or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the deviation from the established criteria in this case with respect to the subject Job Opening No. 21952 was informed by the desire of the incumbent of the post with the active support of the Hiring Manager to ensure that the recruitment process in respect of the Job Opening was aborted and she was retained in service beyond the...

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The UNDT found that the Applicant was unable to prove that the selection process was biased against him and that the consideration of his candidacy was marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or resulted in a failure to give him proper consideration. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. UNDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The UNDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.