51ÁÔÆæ

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

In light of the Respondent¡¯s acceptance of the findings of the UN Ethics Office that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor had engaged in retaliatory acts against the Applicant, the Tribunal did not examine or make any findings on the issue of liability for retaliation. The Tribunal¡¯s review was limited to the issue of compensation. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the cancellation of her e-PAS and the failure to promptly issue another one negatively affected her ability to find other employment within the service of the Organization. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown...

The Tribunal observed that the Organization had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment following his being declared persona non grata in Sudan. In practical terms, this could have necessitated redeployment of post, reassignment, administrative leave or, ultimately, non-extension of the appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s claim to remain in office in the country where he was unwelcome was, in any event, unfounded. The Tribunal, further found that the Organization had fulfilled its legal obligations towards the Applicant and the impugned decision was lawful. Consequently, the...

The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant¡¯s characterization of the contested decision as a ¡°written reprimand¡± in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (¡°MTS¡±), the Applicant¡¯s claim in this...

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...