����AV

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant’s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

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...

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed to comply with the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the UN Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former UN Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the UN Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

The Applicant made an application for strike out, summary judgment and transfer of the case to UNDT New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest for various reasons. The Tribunal issued Order No. 28 refusing the requests for strike out, summary judgment and transfer and, in accordance with Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (ROP), gave case management directives, which the Applicant was supposed to comply with by 4 March 2010 but he did not do so. Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an Order to show cause, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that its...

The Applicant’s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB’s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...

The Respondent having conceded that his summary dismissal of the Applicant was a flawed decision, the only issue before the Tribunal was the matter of compensation and other entitlements due to the Applicant. The payment of a sum equivalent to two years net base salary to the Applicant in the circumstances was sufficient compensation for non-reinstatement. The Tribunal rejected the relief sought for an international posting in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of the equivalent of twenty-one years salary. The payment of a sum equivalent to six months salary to the Applicant was sufficient...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant’s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

The ends of justice are not served but its processes stultified by requiring that an Applicant who had obtained judgment in his/her favour should seek management evaluation for enforcement or execution of the said judgment. An Applicant who refused to accept a cheque made out to her/him in time in fulfilment of a judgment sum cannot turn around to seek payment of interest on the said judgment sum on the grounds of delay. Having found that the monies awarded to the Applicant have been duly paid, the Tribunal rejects the Application in its entirety.

The Applicant’s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent’s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member’s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent’s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The UNDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...