Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nted that the Applicants¡¯ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness.The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract.The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness. The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an ¡°administrative decision¡± and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an ¡°administrative decision¡± or not. As a matter of law and practice, a ¡°friend-of-court¡± brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...

Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

Receivability ratione materiae of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: In order for the Tribunal to act upon an application for suspension of action submitted pursuant to article 2.2 of its Statute, an ¡°administrative decision¡± must be at issue. According to the Tribunal¡¯s case law, a challengeable administrative decision is a decision taken by the Administration which carries direct legal consequences in respect of the applicant¡¯s rights under the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment.

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute read in conjunction with staff rule 11.2(c) that a request for suspension of action during the pendency of the management evaluation may only be receivable if the request for management evaluation has been submitted in due time.