�鶹��ý

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.

The tendered reports of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) regarding home leave were admissible in the case, not only as reports of the opinions of the JIU but also as evidence of the facts stated in them, including as to the practices of the UN. Because of the lack of any reference to a technical definition, the only viable approach was to give the term “full economy class” as ample a meaning as the phrase could reasonably bear and identify those fares which it logically and reasonably denotes. The IATA code was used as an identifier by UNDP and UNOPS, but the lump-sum received by the applicant...

In accordance with article 18, paragraph 2, of its rules of procedure, the Tribunal may order the production of evidence for either party and the parties have to provide such evidence, even though they consider it to be confidential. According to article 18, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it falls upon the Tribunal to assess the confidentiality of the evidence and, if it finds the evidence to be confidential, it is the Tribunal’s responsibility to ensure that measures are taken to preserve such confidentiality. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not use the confidential documents...

There was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, to reach a finding of serious misconduct. The sanction of summary dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The applications are dismissed.

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

No exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a) could be found. The Applicant having served for long time in the Organization, she had ample opportunity to become familiar with the applicable rules. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to be acquainted with the rules on time limits. The Applicant was not induced into error by MEU response as to the outcome she could expect from a procedure before the Tribunal. The transition to the new justice system cannot be said to have affected the Applicant’s ability to timely...

The application for deferral of judgment pending the outcome of the appeal is refused. The Respondent is to appoint an official of at least the rank of USG to consider afresh the complaints of the Applicant in respect of the conduct of the SG. The official is to launch an investigation, as appropriate, under staff rule 10.1 if it is reasonable to suspect that the SA acted in such a way as to justify the imposition of a disciplinary measure.

Accountability referral: the USG’s conduct in dealing with the complaint of the Applicant and in giving evidence to the Tribunal is referred to the SG for...

The Applicant’s request for review is time-barred as far as the decision not to renew her appointment is concerned. As regards both the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract and the alleged mishandling of her visa request (even assuming that such mishandling could be linked to an administrative decision subject to appeal), the Applicant, in the absence of a response from the Secretary-General within two months of her request for review, had one month to file an appeal with the JAB. The appeal is time-barred as well. Given that the time limits prescribed in staff rule 111.2 (a) were not...

The Tribunal reiterated a general principle of procedural law that the right to institute legal proceedings is based on a legitimate interest in initiating and maintaining legal action. Access to the court is denied to those who are obviously no longer interested in the proceedings they once instituted. This applies to the Applicant who did not respond to any of the Tribunal’s requests.

In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General’s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...

There was substantial impact on the applicant’s life and work, which was both foreseeable and a direct result of the breach. Injury to career prospects: It is reasonable to infer that the applicant will probably be promoted in due course and that this prospect has been delayed by his failure to achieve the position in Geneva. This is economic loss. The court proceedings were burdensome, stressful, and time consuming, but this matter is inextricably involved with the denial, up to the judgment, of the applicant’s rights, and will be sufficiently recompensed as part of the award for the breach...

At the time the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had already reviewed its initial decision to grant the Applicant a three-month extension and extended him for an additional nine-month period. The Tribunal determined that since the contested decision was de facto rescinded by the Administration before the application was filed with the Tribunal, the application is not receivable. Had the Administration rescinded its decision after the filing of the application, the application would have become moot during the proceedings and the Tribunal would have...

When the Applicant filled his PT8 form, he claimed daily subsistence allowance (DSA) for the period he would spend in Geneva for training purposes when he was fully aware that he was proceeding there to meet with an NGO or to have consultations with colleagues at HQ. As the purpose of his travel had changed he used funds earmarked for training for a different purpose without obtaining prior written authorisation. There was a note on his PT8 form that during January, the Applicant was on leave but this was not sufficient to absolve him. He received DSA for the period he was away from the...

Under the given circumstances, the application for an extension of time could not be considered as an application on the merits. No exceptional circumstances for an extension of time could be found. Lack of legal counsel normally does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Since the Applicant had learned one month before the end of the time limit that OSLA would not take her case, it was appropriate and reasonable for the Applicant to submit an application by herself within the time limits.

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...

The Tribunal cannot allow the Applicant’s claim to continue to “hang like the sword of Damocles” over the efficient operations of the Organization. The Applicant had failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect of his Application. The Applicant’s Counsel’s responses show disregard for the directions from the Tribunal. The Applicant has not actively or diligently pursued his case.

The Tribunal noted that the case was one of the cases provided for under Section 4.2 of ST/SGB/2009/11 on transitional measures. At the outset, the Tribunal declared the application irreceivable with respect to any claim which had not been raised previously in the request for review to the Secretary-General. The Tribunal further raised ex officio the issue of the receivability ratione personae of the application since the decision not to select the Applicant to the post was taken when the Applicant was a former staff member. The Tribunal noted that article 3, paragraph 1 (b), of the UNDT...

The Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal took the view that the decision taken by the administration to appoint an ad interim DCPM and to reallocate responsibilities and duties pursuant to that appointment was an administrative decision. Nevertheless, for the purposes of Article 2.1 (a) of the UNDT Statute, the Tribunal stated that it is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely establish that an administrative decision was taken in the overall context of the position she...

Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are well known and widespread instruments in administrative law, both in national and in international jurisdictions. Compared to the time limits in some national and international systems, the time limits in the UN justice system remain within a reasonable frame. As for exceptions, “exceptional cases” arise from exceptional personal circumstances. Relevant factors for an Applicant’s failure to act within the prescribed time limits are confined to his individual capacities. Factors like the prospects of success on the merits and the...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant’s complaints against ECA’s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 – Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.