51ÁÔÆæ

HLIS acted fairly and transparently in advising the Applicant that she had to update her mailing address to receive her insurance card and did not act in a negligent manner. The applicable law does not allow a retroactive termination of the enrollment in the United Nations Headquarters-administered insurance programme outside of the annual campaign. There was no legal basis for the retroactive cancellation of the Applicant¡¯s enrollment in the United Nations Headquartersadministered insurance programme and reimbursement of the premiums and thus there was no legal basis for any other...

Receivability The Respondent challenged the receivability ratione materiae of the application, arguing that the final administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 24 November 2016. The Tribunal found that no final decision had been taken on 24 November 2016, and that the matter was being further reviewed, on the basis of new elements and discussions, inter alia, with the President of ICTY. Therefore, by filing her request for management evaluation on 21 January 2017, against the communication of 29 November 2016 denying her release, the Applicant respected the statutory deadline of...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of UNDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related

The Applicant duly performed the obligation to inform the Administration within the stipulated timelines of his ill health and diligently initiated and maintained communication with his supervisor, UNMISS Human Resources Section (HRS), the UNMISS Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Services Division (MSD). He sent all documentation requested of him in that regard. The review and non-certification of the Applicant¡¯s sick leave were unduly delayed by the MSD and that the said delay was prejudicial to the Applicant. MSD and UNMISS/HRS owed a duty to the Applicant to advise him of the option...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...