����AV

The Tribunal found that there were several reasons why the application was not receivable: the impugned decision was merely a prefatory act , moreover, as such, it was sub judice in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2022/6. However, on a purely formal plane, the application had been filed out of time.

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

The Tribunal recalled its observations in Fultang UNDT/2022/102 filed by this Applicant. The measure is provided in the interest of the Organization; and was fully justified by the need to preserve evidence and to avoid the risk of repetition or continuation of further acts similar to those the Applicant was accused of.

The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.

The Applicant’s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

The Notice and its placement in the Applicant’s personnel file   Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member’s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure “does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not meet the criteria which would entitle him to seek recourse within the internal justice system. From the documents before the Tribunal follows that the Applicant is not a United Nations staff member. The Applicant’s submissions do not establish that an offer of employment had been issued and the Applicant does not provide any evidence that he is entitled to contract-based rights with a view to employment as a staff member within the Organization. The Administration did not undertake to conclude a contract for the recruitment of the Applicant as a...

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the “contested decision” as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...