The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.
Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.
The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.
The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.
The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the motion for interim measures concerned appointment, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.
Accordingly, the motion for interim measures during the proceedings was rejected.
In any case, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented as the Applicant had been separated from UNHCR.
The case was referred to the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (“UNOMS”).
Upon confirmation from UNOMS that the referral was accepted as per para. 7 of Practice Direction No. 3 (Mediation), the proceedings would be suspended for 30 calendar days.
As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute (Evan...
The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Tribunal took note of the Applicant’s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was “partially resident” in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...
The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant’s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.
The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...
The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...
