Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)

The rejection of creating a “separate case” for the Applicant’s motion for interim relief in Case No. UNDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.

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 2011–2012 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...

UNDT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. UNDT rejected the application as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...

The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.

The UNDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the UNDT Statute. The UNDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the UNDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

There was a valid offer of employment made to the Applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the Applicant acquired the status of an individual entitled to seek redress before the Tribunal. The act of requesting the waiver following the issuance, and acceptance, of the offer of appointment formed part of a continuum of events which should properly have led to the Applicant being appointed to the position she was sought out for. Noting that the decision not to appoint the Applicant would probably not be rescinded, the Tribunal, in the alternative, awarded her 18 months’ net base salary...

The Tribunal found, on receivability, that this amounts to an appealable administrative decision, insofar as it had direct effects on the Applicant’s rights, and on the merits, that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Direct legal effects: A decision to fill a given vacancy through a lateral movement has direct legal effects on the rights of potential candidates...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.