UNDT

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant’s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is “serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment” for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in UNEP (part of Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of appointment...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing “non...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

1. The decision by MONUSCO Human Resources to withhold the P.35 form was unlawful because the authority to withold said form is is expressly delegated solely to the USG/DMSPC.

2. The Administration failed to act swiftly in this matter.

3. The application floundered on the requirement of irreparable damage. Mere economic loss only is not enough to satisfy the requirement of irreparable damage.

4. The consequential damages that the Applicant claimed as a result of the economic loss (his alleged inability to pay for food, housing and education) are all damages that could be recovered should the...

In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation.

There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met.

In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.

In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant’s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met.

Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present.

The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended.

2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...

1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang UNDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding.

2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings.

3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...