麻豆APP

UNDT

Showing 11 - 20 of 2703
017 (NBI/2025), Tarek Abdou
  • Appealed
Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so. Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead. This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant’s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel’s neglect.
002 (NBI/2024), Francis Fultang
  • Appealed
1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang UNDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...
007 (NBI/2024), Jean-Joseph Henry
  • Appealed
1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...
014 (NBI/2024), Jayne Kimani
  • Appealed
In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant’s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.
020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
  • Appealed
In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
046 (NBI/2024), Bubega
  • Appealed
1. The decision by MONUSCO Human Resources to withhold the P.35 form was unlawful because the authority to withold said form is is expressly delegated solely to the USG/DMSPC. 2. The Administration failed to act swiftly in this matter. 3. The application floundered on the requirement of irreparable damage. Mere economic loss only is not enough to satisfy the requirement of irreparable damage. 4. The consequential damages that the Applicant claimed as a result of the economic loss (his alleged inability to pay for food, housing and education) are all damages that could be recovered should the...
016 (GVA/2025), Francois Blaauw
  • Appealed

The Applicant’s request for management evaluation pertains solely to the decision to withdraw his offer of employment based on a negative reference verification. Accordingly, the only decision that could be subject to a suspension of action order is the withdrawal of the offer. The Applicant’s impending separation from service, however, is a natural consequence of the temporary appointment he voluntarily accepted. It is not part of the contested decision. As a result, the application is not receivable insofar as it seeks to challenge the “implementation of [the Applicant’s] separation from...

003 (GVA/2024), Vanshelboim
  • Appealed

Given the complexity and significance of the issues presented in this case, the assigned Judge requested the formation of a Three-Judge Panel, in accordance with Article 10.9 of the Tribunal’s Statute and Paragraph 4 of Practice Direction No. 1. Pursuant to the authorization of the President of the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal, the following Judges were appointed to the Panel: Judge Sun Xiangzhuang (Presiding), Judge Joelle Adda, and Judge Sean Wallace.

009 (GVA/2024), Sanaka Samarasinha
  • Appealed

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. All three conditions must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. The Applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision on two grounds: a) The UNDP Legal Framework was inconsistent with staff rule 10.4...