51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

The UNDT found that given that the Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ the deadline for the filing of his request for management evaluation, his application was time-barred and his application was not receivable before the Tribunal.

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants¡¯ post at the S-3 level, the UNDT found that the Applicants¡¯ claims regarding the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case¡ªincluding oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents¡ªthe Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the UNDT found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants¡¯ posts at the S-3 level was...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

The UNDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with UNPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the UNDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the UNDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed 51ÁÔÆæ the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The UNDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the UNDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...