±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...

The Applicant¡¯s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the United Nations would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...

A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent¡¯s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal¡¯s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/168, by which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant¡¯s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant¡¯s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s rights as a staff member.

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members¡¯ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant¡¯s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...