51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which UNDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. UNDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. UNDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. UNDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, UNDT closed the case.

UNDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. UNDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

The UNDT found that General Assembly resolution 63/253, by which the Assembly adopted the statutes of the UNDT and the UNAT, imposed limitations on their jurisdiction. Interns presently do not have access to the UNDT and the UNAT. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application, the UNDT dismissed it without consideration of its merits.

UNDT ordered the Respondent to (i) remove adverse material from the Organization¡¯s files, (ii) send to the Member States that received the summary a copy of the Judgment and explanatory statement, (iii) pay monetary compensation in the amount of USD60,000 for non-pecuniary harm, including emotional distress and damage caused to the Applicant¡¯s reputation. The UNDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claims for direct economic loss.

Receivability: In light of the Respondent¡¯s own arguments in this case, it should have been clear that the decision taken clearly falls within the type of decisions contemplated by art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. This Tribunal has moved toward a less rigid and more purposive interpretation of what constitutes an administrative decision and parties should not fail to take into account the developing case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal. Incomplete applications: There may be cases where an application for sabbatical leave, while formally containing the documents and...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant¡¯s failure to choose the decision-maker¡¯s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant¡¯s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the initial imposition of the reprimand was justified based on the Applicant¡¯s own admitted supervisory failings. However, the Tribunal found that the withdrawal and subsequent reinstatement of reprimand were improper, as was the decision to transfer the Applicant from his post. The Tribunal directed the parties to confer on the issue of compensation.