¹ú²úAV

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The UNDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The UNDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. UNDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal’s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-UNAT-457 and Nartey 2015-UNAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.

The UNDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe’s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant’s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability – Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM’s consideration within 30 days.