51³Ô¹Ï

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.

The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...

The UNDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant’s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the UNDT statute was...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent’s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The Applicant did not prove that any exceptional circumstance beyond her control prevented her from filing the application on time. The Applicant’s request for anonymity is granted to ensure the protection of the medical information discussed in the case. Related