����AV

A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent’s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal’s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant’s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant’s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant’s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s rights as a staff member.

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members’ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant’s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent’s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

The UNDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.

The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...