Â鶹APP

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said compensation the...

The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant¡¯s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.

As to the...

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant¡¯s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent¡¯s request for an award of costs.

The Applicant was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. He did not.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant¡¯s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.