51ÁÔÆæ

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

UNDT held that, in light of Order No. 62 (NY/2010) and the subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there was no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. UNDT closed the case without a determination of its merits.

Receivability: Only the appeal of the compensation amount was receivable¡ªthe Respondent had already conceded to the selection processes being flawed, the Applicant¡¯s return to her liened post was not an administrative decision in itself, and the Applicant had defined a fourth decision too vaguely to give it any meaning. Compliance with orders: Lacking a response from Counsel for the Applicant to a written order, the Tribunal determined that, due to his failure 51ÁÔÆæ the order, by default the Tribunal would deem that the Applicant had agreed with the Respondent¡¯s contentions regarding...

The Tribunal, noting that the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the time limit set out in former staff rule 111.2(a), focused solely on whether there were ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s mere assertion that she was unable to follow-up and was incapable of submitting a reasoned appeal as a result of psychological and professional stress was inadequate to warrant a waiver of the time limits. Based on the limited submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal was unable to establish any causal relation between her state of...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

UNDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to UNDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. UNDT rejected the application.

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

Request for review: The Administration should not be excessively formalistic and demand that for a request for review to be considered as such, it must necessarily be addressed to the Secretary-General. However, such a request must be formulated in sufficiently clear terms to be regarded by its addressee as a formal request for review¡ªthat is, as the first compulsory step initiating the appeals procedure provided for by former staff rule 111.2(a)¡ªwhich s/he must then forward to the Secretary-General. Exceptional circumstances/duty to inform staff members: There is no provision requiring the...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable ratione temporis but rejected it on the merits, on the ground that the post whose functions the Applicant carried out was not vacant or temporarily vacant within the meaning of ST/AI/1999/17. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages. Receivability ratione temporis: The serious health problem suffered by the Applicant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay in filing his application. The short period of time between the end of his sick leave and the filing of his application shows that the...

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...