51ÁÔÆæ

Both parties appealed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. UNAT, however, disagreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

The Applicant addressed a letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Secretary-General requesting him to ¡°reverse that decision¡± but no mention was made of the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract because it was only on 30 June 2009 that the Applicant was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 September 2009. The Applicant sought to establish that he had in fact requested a review of the decision and referred to an email he had sent to the Registrar of the ICTR in which he informed him that he was contesting the decision not to renew his contract. That email was dated 27 April 2009...

The Applicant¡¯s counsel registered his concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given that the Registrar of this Tribunal was involved, at least in part, in the decision making processes which form the substance of the present application. Counsel for the Applicant stated that he simply wished for his concerns to be recorded, but that he was not seeking a ruling on the issue. The Applicant¡¯s concerns with regard to the potential conflict of interest on the part of the Registrar were noted. Notwithstanding the Applicant¡¯s position that he was not seeking a ruling on the issue, the...

Motion for extension of time was refused. Abuse of process of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence tendered before it in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absences. The Tribunal is not convinced that the reasons proffered by the Applicant to explain his unauthorized absences were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to address this performance shortcoming. The Tribunal is satisfied, in consideration of the requirements of section 8.3 of ST/AI/2002/3, that the ICTR Administration had taken steps to rectify the situation in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absenteeism.

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.

The Tribunal cannot allow the Applicant¡¯s claim to continue to ¡°hang like the sword of Damocles¡± over the efficient operations of the Organization. The Applicant had failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect of his Application. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s responses show disregard for the directions from the Tribunal. The Applicant has not actively or diligently pursued his case.

The time for requesting a management evaluation in this case is specified in Staff Rule 111.2(c). This rule provides that a request for management evaluation should not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it was sent within 60 days of notification of the contested administrative decision. The Secretary-General is able to extend this time limit pending efforts for informal resolution by the office of the Ombudsman. In this case there is no evidence that the parties submitted the matter to the office of the Ombudsman for mediation within the deadlines for filing a management evaluation...

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB¡¯s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...