Â鶹´«Ã½

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent’s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant’s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. UNCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of UNCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that UNCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

The Applicant, a UNDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The UNDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

UNDT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. UNDT rejected the application as not receivable.

Management evaluation: the requirement of filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application before the Tribunal has been invariably upheld by the Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to either waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation with the MEU or make any exception to it; therefore, the Tribunal is incompetent to review decisions which have not been subjected to management evaluation. Technical bodies: as per staff rule 11.2(b), technical bodies are determined by the Secretary-General. Absent such determination...

Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent’s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties’ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...