Â鶹´«Ã½

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs’ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant UNDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months’ net base salary for moral damage.

For the Applicant to claim pecuniary damages arising from his being transferred, or the reprimand being withdrawn whilst he was subjected to the JDC process, he must establish that he suffered actual economic harm. The Applicant could, for instance, have done so by identifying a specific promotion which he missed out on. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has provided limited evidence of his exclusion from consideration for other posts. The Tribunal finds that being investigated for misconduct and having been issued with an administrative reprimand is more than likely to have negatively...

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent’s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...

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...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc’ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. UNDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The UNDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of UNCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...