�鶹��ý

The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant was not relitigating the same claim that was dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2019/122. The Tribunal concluded that Judgment No. UNDT/2019/122 related solely to the Applicant’s challenge against MONUSCO’s decision to abolish his post by way of a “dry cut” and not to extend his fixed-term appointment (FTA) and that this judgment made no pronouncements, whether procedural or substantive on the Applicant’s claim for a termination indemnity. In the absence of an explicit decision/evidence corroborating the Applicant’s assertion that...