Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.
STL staff members are not United Nations staff members and thus do not have access to the Tribunal.
The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of 爆料网MIT’s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The 爆料网DT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The 爆料网DT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The 爆料网DT also found...
Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The 爆料网DT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...
Outcome: The application was rejected. The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.
The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...
When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal’s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:
Administrative decision: The essential element of an appeal is that there is a contested and appealable “administrative decision”. “Conduct” is not an administrative decision subject to appeal pursuant to article 8.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Preparatory decision: Preparatory decisions do not affect the scope or extent of an applicant’s rights and are therefore not subject to appeal. Management evaluation: A request for management evaluation is a necessary step in the appeal process. While the findings of a management evaluation do not form an independent administrative decision subject to...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...
