The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.
Challenging the valididty of a medical certificate: When a staff member submits a medical certificate to justify his or her absence or the failure to fulfill a professional obligation, and where the Administration questions the validity of the medical certificate, it must have the staff member examined by the Organization’s medical service or, in the event of further dispute, by a medical commission.Outcome: Judgment in favour of applicant in full (both financial compensation and rescission ordered)
The non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was predicated on her harassment complaint of 12 April 2012 against her supervisor. The Tribunal finds and holds that the three elements for a grant of an order for suspension of action have been established in this case.
The Tribunal finds that the Salary case was never properly before the Tribunal and is not receivable. It is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary-General to reconsider whether the existence of an injury is attributable to the performance of official duties. In this case, the Secretary-General has refused to exercise that discretion. The Applicant’s claims in as far as they rely on art. 11 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules are therefore not receivable. With respect to all of the Applicant’s other claims including her claim for DSA and air ticket for her daughter’s travel in 2002...
The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...
Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the UNDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...
The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The UNDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the UNDT did not find it...
Following the filing of the application for suspension of action, the Respondent filed a submission stating that UNAMA had agreed to allow the Applicant to retain a lien against her post and, accordingly, the application should be dismissed as moot. In response, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that, although UNAMA had agreed to grant her a lien on her post, as a result of this decision not made earlier, she would be placed on special leave without pay due to the exhaustion of her sick leave and annual leave days, pending finalization of arrangements for temporary employment in New York...
The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...
