51�Թ�

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged “secret and retaliatory” investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...