51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant had failed to take the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. However, it observed that while failure to request management evaluation denies the Applicant access to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction at present, the Applicant was never formally notified in writing of the administrative decision or the reasons therefore. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the situation in this case arose through an alleged mistake of the Administration and through no fault of the Applicant.

Need to observe time-limits: It is for the staff member who sought management evaluation of a decision, once he/she has been informed that the Secretary-General issued his response, to take cognizance of the content of this response as soon as possible and ensure compliance with applicable deadlines.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the administrative decision after the 60 day deadline for requesting a management evaluation had passed. Her Application was therefore not receivable as the Tribunal is not competent to extend the deadline for a request for management evaluation.

Sub judice: The sub judice rule restricts the publication of prejudicial information relating to proceedings that are current before a court or pending judicial consideration and determination. Publication of prejudicial information about a person will not attract liability for contempt if proceedings involving that person are not yet pending (although a publication in this situation may attract liability on other legal grounds, for example, a defamation action in the domestic courts). Publication of material on matters that are sub judice may result in contempt of court, punishable in many...

Receivability ¨C Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the UNDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the UNDT Statute that the UNDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...