OAJ Categories

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant’s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was “outstanding” at teamwork.

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant’s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

The UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration’s inaction.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice…it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary’s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal’s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-UNAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...