51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...

The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with UNSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU¡¯s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant¡¯s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a ¡°wall of silence¡± was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materia.

The Tribunal accepted the application in part. It awarded the Applicant one-month¡¯s net base salary for moral damages and two-months¡¯ net base salary for breach of her employment contract. The Tribunal found that the manner in which the Applicant was treated by the ESCWA management deserved compensation. The evidence showed that the Applicant was removed from her functions without prior notice. She was requested to turn over her security pass and leave the premises immediately. She was not allowed to enter the premises without authorization. In this regard, the Tribunal found that compensation...

The Tribunal (a) granted the application in part, (b) rescinded the contested decision in part and replaced the excessive and unlawful disciplinary measure of dismissal with the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnity; (c) ordered the judgment to be included in the Applicant¡¯s official status file and all references relating to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal to be removed from this file and to be replaced with the new sanction, namely separation from service with termination indemnity; and (d) in the event that the Respondent would decide not to rescind...

The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent¡¯s letter of 6 May 2015.

Whilst the prescribed form refers to ¡°judgments¡± and not ¡°orders¡±, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form UNDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.