51ÁÔÆæ

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required 51ÁÔÆæ his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

The UNDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

When joining UNOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for UN purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by UNOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...