51ÁÔÆæ

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before UNDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member¡¯s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

Since the applicant did not comply with the time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a), the Tribunal examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former staff rule 111.2 (f) which prevented her from submitting a request for review in time.The Tribunal applied the definition of exceptional circumstances adopted by the former UNAT and upheld by the UNDT in a number of judgments, i.e. circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Outcome: The application was rejected as time-barred.

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

The contested decision did not affect the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment derived from his status as a former staff member or from his status as a retiree. Furthermore, there is not a contractual relationship between the applicant and the Organization derived from his voluntary service as a member of the Panel of Counsel. The application was thus neither receivable before the UNAT nor before the UNDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The contested decision was linked to the decision to bar the applicant from entering the VIC in October 1999, when he was no longer a staff member of UNOV. Hence, the decision to deny his counsel access to the applicant¡¯s OSF did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The application was thus neither receivable before the UNAT nor before the UNDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The application is prima facie not receivable before the UN Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former UN Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the UN Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Receivability: Although the applicant accepted the assignment, this does not mean that all decisions taken by the Administration with respect to the applicant must be deemed correct and lawful. The Organization¡¯s decision to base its calculation of the applicant¡¯s salary on her net income constitutes an administrative decision affecting her contractual right to proper remuneration and the case is therefore receivable. Salary calculation: ST/IC/2007/24 and ST/AI/2000/1 articulate that all G-level staff will be receiving an SPA to the P-2 level. Pursuant to provisional staff rule 3.10(d), the...

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

Outcome: The application was held to be out of time. The Tribunal did not find this case to be exceptional. The application was dismissed.

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...