�鶹��ý

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

As the parties concur that the correct procedure for the ABCC was not applied and the cases should be remanded to the ABCC for institution or correction of the required procedure, the Tribunal will, by consent, so order. However, since art. 10.4 of the Statute explicitly states that such remand shall be done “prior to a determination of the merits of the case”, the Tribunal is not in a position to pronounce on the substance of the cases (at least Case No. UNDT/NY/2018/011, concerning the ABCC’s initial rejection of the compensation claim and not the subsequent rejection by its Secretary), and...

The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant’s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-UNAT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-UNAT-842, the claim is dismissed.

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the UN Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-UNAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...

Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.

Art. 8.1(i) of the UNDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...