Â鶹´«Ã½

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant¡¯s final entitlements and pension paperwork. In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.

Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent¡¯s response to his request for production of evidence. The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant¡¯s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion. The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...

In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant¡¯s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant must comply with the requirements for filing an application set forth in paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4 with respect to the number of pages and content of Annexes in an application form. The Applicant failed to comply with these provisions. Specifically, the Applicant filed, as an annex, 10 pages of arguments and facts beyond those set forth in the application form. The Applicant was directed to file an amended application which was in compliance with paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4.

1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang UNDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...

1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...

In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.

Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so. Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead. This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant¡¯s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel¡¯s neglect.

The Applicant failed to identify disputed facts for which the proposed testimony is relevant. Even assuming the facts as alleged by the Applicant regarding her future claims, it was clear that each decision would rise or fall on its own merits. Directing the Applicant to file new claims in the case would cause undesirable delay in disposing of the case.