In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of “exceptional” in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant’s physical presence was not required in the U.S. for her to file her Application.
In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of “exceptional” in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB’s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...
The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant’s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent’s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant’s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. UNDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...
The judge must raise on his/her own motion the issue of receivability of an application and in particular verify whether the requirements of former staff rule 111.2 (a) have been complied with since the request for review of an administrative decision is a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the UN Dispute Tribunal. The absence of the request for review leads to the irreceivability of the application (see judgments UNDT/2010/158, Osman; UNDT/2009/070, Planas; UNDT/2009/054, Nwuke; UNDT/2009/035, Caldarone). The Tribunal’s competence is limited, pursuant to art. 2.1 (a) of the...
The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant’s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years “partially meets expectations”. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.
The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant’s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.
With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.
1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant’s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...
Receivability: A decision which does not merely confirm a previous decision, but shows that in the meantime, efforts have been made by the Administration to find an alternative arrangement and sets a new deadline, may be considered as a new decision, which has the effect of setting a new time limit for requesting administrative review. In accordance with article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute, the three-year time limit cannot be extended, even in exceptional cases within the meaning of article 8.3 of the Statute. The Dispute Tribunal is not competent to hear the case under article 2.7 (transitional...
UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant’s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant’s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant’s rights were violated when the...
