The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.
It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant’s Counsel argues that “technical difficulties” and an “internal oversight” prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the “error message” provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...
The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...
Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...
The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.
The Tribunal finds the Respondent’s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal’s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...
As the parties concur that the correct procedure for the ABCC was not applied and the cases should be remanded to the ABCC for institution or correction of the required procedure, the Tribunal will, by consent, so order. However, since art. 10.4 of the Statute explicitly states that such remand shall be done “prior to a determination of the merits of the case”, the Tribunal is not in a position to pronounce on the substance of the cases (at least Case No. UNDT/NY/2018/011, concerning the ABCC’s initial rejection of the compensation claim and not the subsequent rejection by its Secretary), and...
The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant’s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other...
The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...
The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for this...
