ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. UNDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant’s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. UNDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant’s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, UNDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of UNDT. UNDT held that the EOD date as...

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the UNDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.

The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...

The UNDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant’s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the UNDT statute was...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent’s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...