Â鶹APP

The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an ¡°administrative decision¡± under the provisions of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the Â鶹APP General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an ¡°administrative decision¡±, because it does not produce ¡°direct legal consequences¡±. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

A judgment on receivability is not an executable judgment. It is not a judgment on the merits of the case where all issues have been adjudicated upon. An executable judgment is one in which the court determines on the substantive issues of the case having heard and deliberated on the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. In so doing, it ends the dispute before the court which heard it. A judgment on receivability is based on a procedural issue. In the present case, the procedural issue had to do with the timeliness of the application and scope of the court¡¯s jurisdiction where the...

She alleged that the Administration advised her wrongly to resign from her 100-series fixed-term appointment (FTA) with UNDP, Kosovo, in 2007, when she was offered a FTA with UNV, Bonn, and argued that her resignation cannot be taken into account when assessing her eligibility for consideration for conversion, namely the requirement of 5-year continuous service. Following requests for additional information, the Tribunal found that the Administration put the Applicant into an illegal situation when she was first offered a 300-series appointment of limited duration with UNV, Bonn, while she...

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant¡¯s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...

The UNDT found that the decision to take into account the Applicant¡¯s recent disciplinary record was not a new disciplinary sanction but an exercise of discretion with regard to a new and separate discretionary administrative process. The contested decision did not amount to unequal or unfair treatment of the Applicant as compared to staff members with existing permanent appointments. The UNDT found that the Administration considered the Applicant eligible for consideration for conversion, but determined that he was not suitable for conversion in view of the recent disciplinary sanction...

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.