��ż���

The Applicant failed to file a request for management evaluation of the nonrenewal decision within the applicable deadline. This claim was not receivable. The Applicant had in his management evaluation request of 12 July 2015 already accomplished the requirements set out in CF/EXD/2012-007 in relation to his complaints of bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of authority against his supervisor and the UNICEF Country Representative. As held in Kadri, the Applicant was entitled to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his application. The Applicant’s claims in relation to the...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant did in fact contest the administrative decision to transfer him to Brindisi based on him having been declared PNG by the Syrian authorities and, thus, finds that the application is receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal had no reason to question the testimony from the CMSS and found that the reason provided by the Administration to remove the Applicant from UNDOF— namely that he had been declared PNG—was supported by the evidence. The Tribunal found that in a situation where the Organization is bound to take prompt action to reassign a staff...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the UNDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. UNDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of UNDT Statute require only “requesting”...