äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The UNAT found that the UNDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

Outcome: The application for an extension of time to file an answer sets out in detail the reasons for the filing of an answer, and therefore the judge considered it as an application in terms of article 19 to file further papers. The judge held that in the current circumstances, receiving an additional submission that clarifies issues of fact and law may prevent unnecessary litigation, and assist the court in determining the questions before it in a fair and expeditious manner, and in doing justice to the parties. The judge granted the applicant leave to file an answer to the reply.

Not only did Counsel for the Respondent initially refuse to take part in the proceedings because submissions were being filed and submitted through the eFiling portal, she further failed to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s Order granting her an extension of 30 days. This failure, in the circumstances is an abuse of the process of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is entitled to enter, on its own Motion, a default judgment in this case. This means that in the present case, the Tribunal shall rely on the facts as presented by the Applicant and apply the relevant law to these facts. Upon his separation from...

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the UN do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

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 Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s...