����AV

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant’s rights and obligations...

At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants’ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

The decision to change the Applicant’s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant’s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant’s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant’s reporting officers falls under...

1. In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...

In the present case, in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, he explicitly “reserved” the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant’s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...