Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision.
Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51猎奇 the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..
The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal’s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-UNAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.
The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...
The UNDT found that the Applicant’s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.
The UNDT found that the Applicant’s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.
The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mr. Y., no complaint was ever received by OAIS, and that, hence, the application before the Tribunal was not receivable on that matter as no contestable administrative decision was ever taken with respect to Mr. Y. With regard to the Applicant’s second colleague, Mrs. X., the Tribunal found that an email the Applicant had sent to an UNFPA Human Resources Associate in August 2013 did not meet the formal requirements of a complaint, as it was not addressed to OAIS pursuant to UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (...
Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant’s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to “violations of procedural fairness”. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...
Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...
Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s challenge to OHRM’s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant’s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...
