The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant’s post was a valid exercise of the Organization’s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.
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.
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...
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The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.
The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.
30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3—in particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III—that applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...
Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...
The Applicant’s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent’s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member’s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent’s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The UNDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...
The application for suspension of action was dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant.
