¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant’s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent’s contention that the...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant’s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration’s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent’s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

The UNDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The UNDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-UNAT-345, MEU’s belated...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant’s arguments...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent’s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-UNAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...