51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant filed the application for a stay of proceedings in her case pending the outcome of an on-going recruitment process to the vacant post. The motion for stay of proceedings was refused because it lacked merit. The application was struck out because the Applicant was inviting the Tribunal to act as ¡°Big Brother¡± and constitute some kind of sword of Damocles over the head of the Respondent by keeping her case alive while the recruitment process was on and to possibly invoke it if she was not happy with the outcome of the exercise. This was an abuse of the Tribunal¡¯s process. In...

UNDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the UNDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, UNDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, UNDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

Article 11.3 of the UNDT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a UNDT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the UNDT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the UNDT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...

The reservations which each of the Applicants formulated upon accepting the lump sum are not binding on the Administration since, at the time the agreement was signed, the Administration and the staff member were not in a contractual situation in which each could negotiate rights. Instead, they were in a situation governed by rules in which the Administration could only apply the rules and the staff member could only accept or reject the lump-sum payment proposed. The applicants contend that only by accepting the lump-sum payment with reservations could they challenge the basis on which the...

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...

UNDT noted that the Applicant had until 2 February 2009 to file an appeal before the Joint Appeals Board. However, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was dated 27 February 2009 and was not received by the Joint Appeals Board until 3 March 2009. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not present any exceptional circumstance that prevented him from filing an appeal within the time limits prescribed in the Staff Rules then in effect. UNDT held that the request was therefore irreceivable. UNDT rejected the application.

The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant¡¯s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with UNDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...

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 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.