Íæż½ã½ã

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman’s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.

With respect to the Applicant’s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the UNIFIL Head...

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

The final decision to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration’s own action or by the Tribunal’s judgment, should the Applicant’s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant’s terms of appointment as it merely...

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

UNDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. UNDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

UNDT held that the application challenging the OIOS’ decision not to investigate the Applicant’s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. UNDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to UNHCR for appropriate investigation and action. UNDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The UNDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant’s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the UNDT statute was...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.