UNDT/2013/100

UNDT/2013/100, Mohammed

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond 31 December 2011.

Legal Principle(s)

Timelines before UNDT will normally begin to run from the date of receipt of a decision by management evaluation or the expiry of the time allocated to the; Management Evaluation Unit to respond, i.e. ninety days from the date of the receipt of a management evaluation decision or ninety days following the expiry of the thirty or fourty-five day, depending on where the request was filed, deadline.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Mohammed

Entity

ICTR

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2012/39

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi