�山����

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant’s case rests firmly at her own door.

Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation “until further notice” with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process “at any stage in the future”, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant’s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant’s...

The UNDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from UNOPS to WHO and back to UNOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to UNOPS, and her separation from UNOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

Effect of the breach of due process rights: The Tribunal found that while the Applicant had been denied some of his due process rights at the investigation stage, this breach was cured by the subsequent court proceedings. Further, the Tribunal held that the sanction of summary dismissal was fully justified in view of: (i) the status of the Applicant in the procurement process of ECA; (ii) the fact that he contracted with United Nations vendors without disclosing that fact in clear terms; and (iii) the fact that he was engaged to some extent in the activities of two other companies without...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.