äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute (Evan...

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion and found the application not receivable ratione temporis because (a) it was filed outside the applicable 90-day time limit as provided for by art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Statute and (b) no extraordinary circumstances prevailed.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...