Transferred JAB cases are governed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal on exceptional circumstances are wrong and should not be followed. Ignorance of the law held not relevant. Where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is ambiguous, interpretation should preserve rights and uphold justice so far as the language permits. Outcome: The appeal was submitted within time and is receivable.
The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant...
The time for requesting a management evaluation in this case is specified in Staff Rule 111.2(c). This rule provides that a request for management evaluation should not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it was sent within 60 days of notification of the contested administrative decision. The Secretary-General is able to extend this time limit pending efforts for informal resolution by the office of the Ombudsman. In this case there is no evidence that the parties submitted the matter to the office of the Ombudsman for mediation within the deadlines for filing a management evaluation...
Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...
The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...
The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable because the contested decision is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 11.2(b) and accordingly the time limits applicable under art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute should have been complied with. It clearly follows from staff rule 11.2(b) that the exemption from the requirement to request the management evaluation of a disciplinary measure only applies to disciplinary measures imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process.
The Tribunal observes that the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...
The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...
The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...
Under art. 16(3) of the ICTR Statute, the Registrar of the ICTR is an Assistant Secretary-General. In his position as head of administration, he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Secretary-General in relation to the administration and operations of the ICTR. It was the Tribunal¡¯s finding that the Applicant had addressed his request for an administrative review to the ICTR Registrar, who was the person with the power to either review it on behalf of the Secretary-General or to forward it to the appropriate officer, within the applicable time limits. The Applicant had in...
