The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.
e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...
The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the...
The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. C
What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.
What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.
What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that given that the Applicant failed to comply with the deadline for the filing of his request for management evaluation, his application was time-barred and his application was not receivable before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...
