The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.
The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...
Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.
The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the UNAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.
The UNDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe¡¯s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant¡¯s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability ¨C Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...
With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...
With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...
With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...
With respect to receivability, the Applicants could not challenge the abolition of their posts by a decision of the General Assembly which by itself is akin to a country¡¯s constitution, the higher norm, and the supreme organ of the Organization. The Applicants lacked the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as the non-renewal decision was properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish their posts. Unequal treatment did not occur in the implementation of the Mission¡¯s restructuring which led to the abolition of 80 language...
