Â鶹APP

In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with UNOPS.

Furthermore, UNOPS and UNGSC are two different entities of the UN system. While the Applicant was a former staff member of UNOPS, he had no employment relationship with UNGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with UNGSC.
The Applicant acknowledged that ¡°there...

As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant¡¯s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

A a holder of an UN Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the Â鶹APP, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the Â鶹APP.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant¡¯s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was ¡°ITC¡±, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the Â鶹APP within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...