�山����

Outcome: The application for an extension of time to file an answer sets out in detail the reasons for the filing of an answer, and therefore the judge considered it as an application in terms of article 19 to file further papers. The judge held that in the current circumstances, receiving an additional submission that clarifies issues of fact and law may prevent unnecessary litigation, and assist the court in determining the questions before it in a fair and expeditious manner, and in doing justice to the parties. The judge granted the applicant leave to file an answer to the reply.

The applicant’s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

Outcome: The Applicant’s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant’s file and pay the Applicant six months’ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an “administrative decision” subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the UNDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant’s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

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...

Management evaluation: The Applicant requested management evaluation of each of the administrative decisions that he challenged before the Tribunal. Mediation: the Tribunal found that mediation was sought by the Respondent regarding the proposed disciplinary measure of demotion but the discussion between the Applicant and the ombudsman, went beyond the scope of the demotion. Mediation was sought within the deadline for filing the Application. The time for filling an Application starts from the date when mediation breaks down therefore the application was filed within the applicable time limits...

The UNDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.