51ÁÔÆæ

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of UNDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of UNDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of UNDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

UNDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. UNDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

The ¡°reason to believe¡± must be more than mere speculation or suspicion: it must be reasonable and hence based on facts sufficiently well founded ¨C though of course, not necessarily proved ¨C to rationally incline the mind of the decision maker to the belief. It is clear that the question is one of fact and degree in which the decision maker is bound to act reasonably but which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. It is inaccurate to refer to such a judgment as the exercise of a discretion. If the USG in this case had in fact decided that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the...

UNDT found that in as much as the Applicant¡¯s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant¡¯s request but on the Administration¡¯s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, UNDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant¡¯s...

UNDT rejected the UNHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, UNDT found that the Director of UNHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. UNDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. UNDT...

UNDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. UNDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

UNDT noted that it was established that UNAMI decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. UNDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. UNDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant¡¯s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the UN staff as of 18 August 2009. UNDT...

UNDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the UNDT. UNDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to UNDT and considered by same. UNDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.

UNDT noted that a request for suspension of action can only be granted in cases where all criteria have been satisfied: prima facie unlawfulness, urgency, and irreparable damage. UNDT held that the contested decision in the present case did not appear to be prima facie unlawful. UNDT accordingly did not further examine whether the matter was urgent and/or whether the implementation of the contested decision would cause irreparable damage. UNDT also held that the decision of non-renewal was not an improper exercise of discretion. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the non-renewal...