The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant’s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.
Receivability The Tribunal found the application receivable ratione temporis. Merits The Tribunal considered that while the Administration has a duty of care vis-à-vis its staff members in the management of the social security system and relevant entitlements, the system is based on certification and reporting, with the main responsibility for providing the Administration with the required medical certificates and reports lying on the staff member. Staff members must strictly comply with the legal requirements and provide complete material that contains sufficient precision, including the...
For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...
The Registry of the Tribunal has, in this case, tried to get in touch with the Applicant and her Counsel on record to no avail. While the Applicant has not expressly indicated a desire to abandon proceedings, the Tribunal is in a position where it simply cannot find the Applicant or Counsel acting on her behalf and so, can only assume that she is no longer interested in pursuing this matter any further.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.
As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...
The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...
It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant’s Counsel argues that “technical difficulties” and an “internal oversight” prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the “error message” provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...
Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...
The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.
