Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member.
Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the 麻豆APP and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.
Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.
The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU’s writing in the MEU’s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
The Applicant requests revision of UNDT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal.
Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under “g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months” is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant’s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (“shall”) to be...
Staff rule 4.7(a) and (b) has a limited and express area of application as established in staff rule 4.7(c) and that, per a contrario, a person who is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member and who applied to a post, was considered and was selected through a competitive selection process as being the best candidate, can be assigned to any post, including in the same department/unit which is not superior or subordinate in the line of authority to the staff member to whom s/he is related. Staff rule 4.7(c), by establishing that the posts which are superior or...
The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/UNAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/UNAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...
In circumstances where an applicant is not provided with the whole of the documentation involved in a matter sought to be brought before the Tribunal, it is essential that as material is provided to an applicant there be a right to amend an application. To not allow the amendment of the application would not “do justice to the parties” or “lead to the fair disposal of the case”. Clearly, not permitting an amendment of the application when the true state of affairs is revealed for the first time by the Respondent would offend the inherent obligations of the Tribunal consistent with the...
Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant’s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration’s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).
