51ÁÔÆæ

The Respondent objected to the receivability of the application. The UNDT found the case receivable and directed the parties to attempt informal resolution of the matter.

The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an ¡°administrative decision¡± under the provisions of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an ¡°administrative decision¡±, because it does not produce ¡°direct legal consequences¡±. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant was not qualified to address UNDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The UNDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from UNOPS to WHO and back to UNOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to UNOPS, and her separation from UNOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The UNDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.