Â鶹´«Ã½

1. The decision by MONUSCO Human Resources to withhold the P.35 form was unlawful because the authority to withold said form is is expressly delegated solely to the USG/DMSPC. 2. The Administration failed to act swiftly in this matter. 3. The application floundered on the requirement of irreparable damage. Mere economic loss only is not enough to satisfy the requirement of irreparable damage. 4. The consequential damages that the Applicant claimed as a result of the economic loss (his alleged inability to pay for food, housing and education) are all damages that could be recovered should the...

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application. A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access. The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.