51ÁÔÆæ

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant¡¯s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant¡¯s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (¡°the Policy¡±), a formal complaint has to be addressed to OAIS within six...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant¡¯s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant¡¯s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (¡°the Policy¡±), a formal complaint has to be addressed in writing to OAIS...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the UNDT Statute...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation within 60 days of receiving notification of the contested decision, as required by the Staff Rules. The Respondent produced minutes of four meetings held in June 2014, submitting that in the three of the four meetings, the Applicant was informed that her fixed-term appointment would expire and would not be renewed. The Applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes. A hearing on receivability was held at which each of the participants in the June 2014...

Receivability: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s subsequent correspondence with the ONUCI Human Resources Office after he was notified of the decision did not constitute a new or discrete decision. He failed to meet the 60 day deadline set out in staff rule 11.2(c) for management evaluation. Consequently, his Application is not receivable.

Scope of application: It is an essential and inherent part of the duties of a Judge to clarify, interpret and comprehend what the claim is to identify what is in fact being contested. Time limits (receivability ratione materiae): Time limits do not begin to run anew simply because and when an Applicant is provided with a reasonable belief that there are grounds to request management evaluation of a decision that was notified at an earlier stage. Administrative decision (receivability ratione materiae): In case of post abolition, the decision to (re)advertise the post is not an administrative...

The UNDT found that the first case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure 51ÁÔÆæ the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The UNDT found that the second case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.

he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the UNDT. The UNDT found...

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the UNDT Statute and article 30 of the UNDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; UNDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.