�山����

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the “serious weaknesses in his performance” on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

The UNDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The UNDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the UNDT. The UNDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the UNDT on account of her being a former staff...

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the UNDT. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the UNDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged “secret and retaliatory” investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

The UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation of the contested decision. The UNDT found that the Applicant’s communications with the Human Resources Management Section of the United Nations Office in Vienna in July 2012 did not amount to a request for management evaluation, and even if they were accepted as such a request, it would have been out of time by approximately three months.

The recovery was made on the basis that the Applicant did not complete the expected period of three months of service in UNOCI upon return from his home leave. The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the Applicant’s request for management evaluation and application with the UNDT were not filed within the filing deadlines. The UNDT found that the Applicant having been found in Egglesfield UNDT/2012/208 to be in continuous service, his employment remained continuous beyond three months after his return from home leave and any recovered lump sum for home leave should...

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant’s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

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...