Order

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant’s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant’s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant’s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

The Tribunal took note of the Applicant’s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was “partially resident” in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant must comply with the requirements for filing an application set forth in paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4 with respect to the number of pages and content of Annexes in an application form.

The Applicant failed to comply with these provisions. Specifically, the Applicant filed, as an annex, 10 pages of arguments and facts beyond those set forth in the application form.

The Applicant was directed to file an amended application which was in compliance with paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4.

Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so.

Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead.

This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant’s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel’s neglect.

The Applicant failed to identify disputed facts for which the proposed testimony is relevant. Even assuming the facts as alleged by the Applicant regarding her future claims, it was clear that each decision would rise or fall on its own merits.

Directing the Applicant to file new claims in the case would cause undesirable delay in disposing of the case.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application.

A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access.

The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements and pension paperwork.

In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.

Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent’s response to his request for production of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant.

The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant’s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion.

The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...

As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.