51ÁÔÆæ

In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General¡¯s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant¡¯s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

The UNDT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months¡¯ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member¡¯s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...

At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty 51ÁÔÆæ an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

Appealable administrative decision: Both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on the Tribunal¡¯s website are matters of internal organization which do not constitute acts adversely affecting staff members¡¯ rights.

Receivability ¨C Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.