Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion excercisable ¡°in exceptional circumstances¡± because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

From both the testimonies and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, it found as established that the dire financial situation at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP KCO, as it related to the ¡°11888 fund¡±, was the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant did not produce any evidence allowing the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of the contested decision, the ¡°11888 fund¡± still had funds to allow the Organization to renew her contract. While it is not contested that an incident occurred during the mission to Rwanda in 2014, the Tribunal does not find that the testimonies and...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

To be legally valid, a request for the withdrawal of an application must be formulated by the applicant and/or by his/her counsel and must consist of the unconditional expression of the applicant¡¯s free will to close his case before a judgment is issued. As the Applicant withdrew the matter in finality, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

The Tribunal accepts the motion to withdraw the application on the terms requested. The parties are to be praised for the approach taken in this matter. The Tribunal, on its own motion, decided to anonymize this judgment considering that since the matter was amicably resolved, it was not appropriate for the Applicant¡¯s name to be disclosed in a public document. The Applicant¡¯s motion to withdraw the application is granted and this case is hereby closed, with, as requested, no right of reinstatement.

Pursuant to ITC/EDB/2015/07, when a fact-finding panel is appointed, it shall investigate the complaint and ¡°prepare a detailed report, giving a full account of the facts that they have ascertained in the process and attaching documentary evidence¡± (sec. 5.18). The report shall be submitted to the Director, DSP, who will review it together with the related documentation and make a recommendation on the appropriate course of action to the Executive Director, ITC (see secs. 5.15, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20). Seeking assistance from OIOS was a reasonable solution in the framework of ITC/EDB/2015/07...

An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties¡¯ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...