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 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...
UNAT held that the UNDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. UNAT held that to the extent that the UNDT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, UNDT did not err in fact or law and UNAT upheld such conclusions. UNAT held that there were errors by UNDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the UNDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent’s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...
The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant’s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...
UNAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-UNAT-036)). UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (UNDT/2009/052), which was disproved by UNAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...
UNAT held that the UNDT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that it was open to UNDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. UNAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...
