51ÁÔÆæ

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. UNCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of UNCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that UNCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

Interpretation ¨C As held in Sidell 2014-UNAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-UNAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

Moral damages ¨C As held in Asariotis 2013-UNAT-309, damages for a moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed (be they specifically designated in the Staff Regulations and Rules or arising from the principles of natural justice). Where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of...

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

Administrative Decision - It is now well settled what the classic definition of an administrative decision is as determined in the case of Andronov. The pronouncement has been quoted with approval in a number of judgments of the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ratione temporis - Even if the decision of the Administration could be termed an administrative decision capable of challenge, the Application lamentably fails. The Applicant filed her Application 13 years from the date of receiving the response of the Administration and gives the impression that she woke up and suddenly realized that...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to OHRM¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant¡¯s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...