It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.
Under art. 16(3) of the ICTR Statute, the Registrar of the ICTR is an Assistant Secretary-General. In his position as head of administration, he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Secretary-General in relation to the administration and operations of the ICTR. It was the Tribunal’s finding that the Applicant had addressed his request for an administrative review to the ICTR Registrar, who was the person with the power to either review it on behalf of the Secretary-General or to forward it to the appropriate officer, within the applicable time limits. The Applicant had in...
Receivability: In light of the Respondent’s own arguments in this case, it should have been clear that the decision taken clearly falls within the type of decisions contemplated by art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute. This Tribunal has moved toward a less rigid and more purposive interpretation of what constitutes an administrative decision and parties should not fail to take into account the developing case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal. Incomplete applications: There may be cases where an application for sabbatical leave, while formally containing the documents and...
The ends of justice are not served but its processes stultified by requiring that an Applicant who had obtained judgment in his/her favour should seek management evaluation for enforcement or execution of the said judgment. An Applicant who refused to accept a cheque made out to her/him in time in fulfilment of a judgment sum cannot turn around to seek payment of interest on the said judgment sum on the grounds of delay. Having found that the monies awarded to the Applicant have been duly paid, the Tribunal rejects the Application in its entirety.
Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...
The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the Applicant is not a UN staff member and therefore does not have access to the Tribunal. Status of STL staff members: While article 12 of the STL Statute explicitly provides that the “Registrar shall be a staff member of the United Nations”, there is no such reference for other high-ranking officials such as the Judges or the Prosecutor, nor for any other “Lebanese and international staff” of the STL. From the wording of both the Statute and the Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of the...
Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.
Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...
Receivability: The Applicant’s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...
The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.
