Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.
The Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application and requesting that the case file be placed under seal. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. The UNDT found that, given the already confidential status of the Tribunal’s case files, the Applicant’s request to place the case record under seal need not be granted. However, the UNDT ordered that, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s name be redacted from the Judgment.
The application was withdrawn by the Applicant. The Applicant's request for redaction was granted in part and his name to be redacted from the judgment.
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...
The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.
The UNDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant’s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
The UNDT found that she was evaluated fairly with respect to both the written test and the interview, which was based on appropriate criteria. The UNDT found that the selection process was not biased against the Applicant and that consideration of her candidacy was not marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or result in a failure to give her proper consideration. The UNDT dismissed the application.
The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant’s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the UNDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.
Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...
