Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant’s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.
The UNDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the UNDT within the prescribed time period. The UNDT found that UNDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the “suspension” of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant’s late filing of her application with the UNDT. Nevertheless, the UNDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...
Abolishment of the Applicant’s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent’s restructuring strategy.
Interpretation – As held in Sidell 2014-UNAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-UNAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.
The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant’s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (“UNDP”), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at UN Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...
The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.
Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51猎奇 the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.
Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...
While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them—the decision not to grant her ASHI—was the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...
Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...
