Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

MEU¡¯s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT refused the Respondent¡¯s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

Abuse of Process: Proceedings before the Tribunal are not the proper forum to advocate legal reform. Where the Tribunal determines that any applications before it are frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the Court¡¯s process, it will not hesitate to visit sanctions upon the offending party as provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Vexatious Proceedings: An action may be held to be vexatious if it is obviously unsustainable, or frivolous, improper or instituted without sufficient ground to serve solely as an annoyance to the Respondent.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT examined its competence over the matter and found that it does not have jurisdiction over claims concerning individual contractors/consultants/national experts. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application by summary judgment without consideration of its merits.

Receivability Judgment Appealed: As the Applicant remains a staff member early resolution of this case is essential; the facts concerning the disciplinary case and the non-disciplinary issues of demotion are inextricably linked and all of the claims can be expeditiously heard together; the appeal against receivability will take several months to be resolved and will delay the determination of the disciplinary matter. Finally, the issue of receivability may be raised in an appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Written notice: Apart from the events which intervened, he suffered no...

The fact that a staff member is no longer employed by the Organization does not mean that the Organization is not required to notify him or her of the completion of an administrative proceeding related to his or her current or past employment. With respect to the completion of an investigation into allegation filed against him or her, a former staff member benefits from the same rights as a current staff member, including that of being informed of any decision taken by HR related to an investigation of which he was the subject and, as stated in Applicant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/069/Corr.2, ¡°the right to...

The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...