�鶹��ý

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

In the present case, according to the Applicant’s own submissions, he was not in a situation of “an absolute impossibility” of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it “to be perfect”. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant’s contractual employment rights.

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.