��ż���

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was “clear and unambiguous” enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant’s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The impugned “decision” carried no “direct legal consequences” given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.

Considering that the Tribunal’s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue UNDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The UNDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and to established jurisprudence, the Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal’s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable. Likewise, art. 19 provides that it may issue any order or direction that is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, such provision allows the Tribunal to deal with issues of receivability as a preliminary matter in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the Tribunal can...

In the present case, in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, he explicitly “reserved” the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant’s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...