UNDT/2025/013, Martin Akerman
The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).
In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.
The Tribunal determined that the Applicant's objective in filing this Application was to reopen Case No. UNDT/NY/2018/008 in order to request the Tribunal to enforce the settlement agreement it signed with UNFPA on 14 March 2018.
- The Tribunal recalled that, according to the consistent case law of the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal is required to ensure that an application is admissible under Art. 8 of its Statute (see, for example, O'Neill 2011-UNAT-182, confirmed in Christensen 2013-UNAT-335, and Barud 2020-UNAT-998). The Appeals Tribunal has also held that the Dispute Tribunal may examine the admissibility of an application as a preliminary matter before examining the merits of the case (see, for example, Pellet 2010-UNAT-073).
More recently, the Appeals Tribunal has explained that in determining the admissibility of an application, the Dispute Tribunal must consider: (a) whether the applicant has standing; (b) whether the conditions for the Dispute Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction are met; and (c) whether the temporal conditions are met. "Once these three elements are met, the admissibility test is satisfied and the Tribunal can consider the merits of the application" (Majook 2024-UNAT-1408, paras. 29-30).
The applicant also failed to demonstrate that he attempted to have the matter reviewed by the Ombudsman for the United Nations Funds and Programmes, as required by the Settlement Agreement itself.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the Court to reopen a case that has been closed for seven years.