�山����

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent’s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY” (emphasis in the original). The indication “for settlement purposes only” in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant’s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the �山����Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former �山����Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the �山����Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

The case was not time-barred. As in Mezoui: (1) the Applicant had requested from the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal an extension of time to file her application; and (2) such extension was granted with a time limit of 30 June 2009 (the last day of the functioning of the Administrative Tribunal). The following additional factors were also taken into account: the Applicant’s personal circumstances; the significant delays of the JAB proceedings compared to the relatively short delay on the part of the Applicant; and the Applicant’s difficulties in finding out where to file the...

A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent’s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal’s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant’s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration’s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant’s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...