The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. UNRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the UNDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of UNRWA before the Tribunal.
The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General’s discretion excercisable “in exceptional circumstances” because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...
The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.
The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the UNDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...
Contrary to the Applicant’s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...
The Tribunal found that clear and convincing evidence was obtained which was consistent with the Applicant’s sexually exploiting local women and the impugned decision was well-founded. The Applicant had claimed that he had given his username and password to other staff members therefore, he could not be attributed the accessing and storing of the material. The Tribunal did accept this. The Applicant admitted that he had downloaded and installed the cracked software that had caused pornographic material to appear on his computer. He neither named any person with whom he shared the password nor...
The Administration, contrary to its own policies, took into account the Applicant’s functional title only without considering his actual functions vis-à-vis the other P-4 posts in the JAOC. By neglecting to look beyond the Applicant’s functional title, the Administration unlawfully determined that the Applicant would be subject to a dry-cut. Significantly, the Applicant held a continuing appointment. Thus, applying the UNMIL Guidelines to the present case, the Applicant should have been automatically retained since there were, at the time of this application, other P-4 staff members in his...
The United Nations Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant’s dispute with ICAO.
Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent’s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...
