�鶹��ý

The Tribunal (a) granted the application in part, (b) rescinded the contested decision in part and replaced the excessive and unlawful disciplinary measure of dismissal with the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnity; (c) ordered the judgment to be included in the Applicant’s official status file and all references relating to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal to be removed from this file and to be replaced with the new sanction, namely separation from service with termination indemnity; and (d) in the event that the Respondent would decide not to rescind...

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal’s Statute.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant’s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

Whilst the prescribed form refers to “judgments” and not “orders”, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form UNDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the Organization’s internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a mere communication conveying discontent to “management” does not amount to a formal management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the body specifically vested with the authority to look into a contested decision, to consider whether it conformed with the applicable rules of the...

Due diligence: A delay in payment of an entitlement under the Staff Rules and Regulations can constitute a violation of a general principle of due diligence and good faith towards staff members, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which is a structural principle of good management practice. Undue delay: In order to assess whether a delay in payment of an entitlement is undue, the Tribunal will look into the time payment would have taken had normal workflows been respected. A delay of eleven months in payment of an entitlement is undue and may warrant compensation provided the...

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that art. 12.3 of its Statute and art. 30 of its Rules of Procedure limit the scope of applications for interpretation to judgments. Neither the Tribunal’s Statute nor its Rules of Procedure contemplate applications for interpretation with respect to orders. The Tribunal therefore found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae.

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with UNDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant’s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal’s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant’s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...