±¬ÁÏÍø

Request for review: The Administration should not be excessively formalistic and demand that for a request for review to be considered as such, it must necessarily be addressed to the Secretary-General. However, such a request must be formulated in sufficiently clear terms to be regarded by its addressee as a formal request for review¡ªthat is, as the first compulsory step initiating the appeals procedure provided for by former staff rule 111.2(a)¡ªwhich s/he must then forward to the Secretary-General. Exceptional circumstances/duty to inform staff members: There is no provision requiring the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

This application for suspension of action is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

The application for suspension of action was dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant.