The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1035, paras. 19-24).
In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.
The Applicant¡¯s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...
The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.
Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.
The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of ¡°administrative decision¡± within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.
Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...
It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335).
The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.
The Organization, and not the Applicant, is the aggrieved party in any alleged misconduct with respect to any staff member¡¯s possible noncompliance with United Nations financial rules and regulations. While the Applicant had an ongoing obligation as a staff member to report any suspected misconduct in this regard, he did not have a right to any information about an investigation or action taken in relation to it. Sec. 4.7 of ST/AI/2017/1 provides that ¡°[u]nless expressly provided for in the present instruction or other administrative issuances, staff members and third parties are not entitled... |
The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.
The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.
The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...
The Applicant claims that the Administration¡¯s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.
In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...
The Dispute Tribunal had no record of any case filed by the Applicant ever having been transferred to it from JDC when the new system of internal justice at the United Nations took force in July 2009.
Taking into consideration the Applicant¡¯s subsequent failure to pursue the claim for over 12 years, and the absence of any record of a case transferred to it, the Tribunal does not consider itself seized of the application filed in 2007, before the JDC.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable.
