51ÁÔÆæ

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the UNDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the UNDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate ¡°from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy¡± is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that UNDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU¡¯s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...