51ÁÔÆæ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by UNON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by UNON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

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The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

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...

UNDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito UNDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.