Â鶹APP

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. UNDT/2010/105 in which...

Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant¡¯s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, ¡°the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case¡± (see Sanwidi 2013-UNAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-UNAT-680, para. 13): ¡°¡­ Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...

Receivability before the UNCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the UNCB, the relevant staff member is required (¡°shall¡±) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to UNCB: (a) to notify the Â鶹APP authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡± (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).

The Tribunal (a) granted the application in part, (b) rescinded the contested decision in part and replaced the excessive and unlawful disciplinary measure of dismissal with the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnity; (c) ordered the judgment to be included in the Applicant¡¯s official status file and all references relating to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal to be removed from this file and to be replaced with the new sanction, namely separation from service with termination indemnity; and (d) in the event that the Respondent would decide not to rescind...

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.