51ÁÔÆæ

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

UNDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. UNDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

UNDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the UN, had no locus standi before UNDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, UNDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...

The Applicant¡¯s appeal against her own selection for the TJO is not receivable because it is time-barred under staff rule 11.2(c). As no reasonable remedy would be available for the Tribunal to rectify the situation to the relevant applicant¡¯s advantage, the appeal would only be of speculative interest. In the present case, the Applicant basically appeals against herself being selected for and appointed to a job, which is evidently an administrative decision to her advantage. Consequently, the Applicant¡¯s appeal of the decision to recruit her against the TJO is not receivable as it does not...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

Receivability The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was out of time. Thus, the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is not receivable ratione materiae. It is clear from the evidence on file that the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is time-barred and, consequently, not receivable ratione temporis. Non selection for the re-advertised post of Fundraising Officer The burden to prove unlawfulness in relation to non-selection lays with the Applicant as per the consistent internal case law...