Order

Le Tribunal a pris note de la préférence du requérant pour que l'affaire soit jugée à New York, étant donné qu'il était « partiellement résident » aux Etats-Unis avec sa famille. Cependant, après avoir examiné tous les arguments avancés par les parties depuis le dépôt de l'affaire au greffe de New York, en particulier les documents officiels fournis par le conseil du défendeur, le Tribunal a considéré qu'il était approprié et dans l'intérêt de la justice de transférer l'affaire au greffe de Genève. Le Tribunal s'est également assuré que le requérant ne serait pas lésé par le transfert de l...

Le Tribunal a estimé que la demande était prématurée, car elle concernait un processus de recrutement qui était toujours en cours et pour lequel il n'y avait pas eu de décision de sélection. La décision de ne pas convoquer le requérant à un entretien était une étape intermédiaire qui ne constituait pas une décision administrative finale susceptible de recours. Par conséquent, la demande n'était pas recevable 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...

Le requérant ayant introduit la requête devant le Tribunal près de deux mois après la mise en œuvre de la décision d'inclure son nom dans la base de données ClearCheck, la demande de sursis à statuer n'était donc pas recevable.

Le Tribunal a d'abord ordonné que, conformément à la décision du Tribunal d'appel dans l'affaire Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, la sélection contestée ne soit pas mise en œuvre pendant la durée de la présente procédure et avant qu'il n'ait statué sur toutes les questions de la présente affaire.

Le requérant ayant déposé sa requête auprès du Tribunal après que la sélection ait été mise en œuvre, la demande de suspension de l'action n'était donc pas recevable.