����AV

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent’s motion on...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant’s objection to General Assembly’s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that...

The deadline for the Applicant’s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant’s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant addressed a letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Secretary-General requesting him to “reverse that decision” but no mention was made of the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract because it was only on 30 June 2009 that the Applicant was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 September 2009. The Applicant sought to establish that he had in fact requested a review of the decision and referred to an email he had sent to the Registrar of the ICTR in which he informed him that he was contesting the decision not to renew his contract. That email was dated 27 April 2009...

With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.