����AV

UNAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Applicant did not actively or diligently pursue his case because: he failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect to his challenge against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment; he had been informed about the Status Conference by his Counsel and had failed to make an appearance or to contact the Tribunal to give reasons for his absence; his Counsel had advised that as far as she was concerned, the substantive matter in the application had been resolved; and from the documents tendered by the Respondent, the Tribunal was convinced that the substantive matter in the...

Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.

UNDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. UNDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

The decision was illegal since the Applicant, as a 15-day mark candidate, had been found suitable and therefore, in application of Section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Administration was precluded from considering and selecting 30-day mark candidates. The Administration is bound to strictly adhere to the unambiguous terms of an administrative instruction.The Administration has discretionary power to set down reasonable standards to determine if a candidate has “working knowledge” of a certain language, which it did in the present case.The Administration, in its dealing with staff members, has to...

A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory with the exception of disciplinary cases. It is clear from the applicant’s submissions that he was well aware that the decision to stop the payment of his salary and the decision not to renew his appointment are two distinct administrative decisions. The applicant failed to request an administrative review or management evaluation of the decision not to pay his salary. Outcome: The application is not receivable.

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.

The Tribunal takes note that the Applicant has failed to file his application within the deadline given to him in the Tribunal’s Order of 22 January 2010 and even beyond. It also notes that the Applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why he did not comply with the Order of the Tribunal. By his behaviour and attitude the Applicant has displayed a singular blatant ignorance of a court order. His conduct is one of contempt of the Tribunal. This attitude does not befit persons who like the Applicant come to seek justice and a vindication of their rights before the Tribunal.

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...

The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending UNAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise UNAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former UNAT are res iudicata.