51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant¡¯s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has satisfied the requirements of art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Whilst his request for management evaluation may not have been drafted in the most articulate legal language, the substance conveyed leaves no doubt, the Applicant did not want to be removed from his post and was not happy that it had been readvertized. The Respondent¡¯s objections on the grounds of receivability have no merit.

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. UNCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of UNCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that UNCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant¡¯s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (¡°UNDP¡±), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at UN Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.