¹ú²úAV

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 formally revoked and such revocation is notified to staff members. By rendering Determination A, MEU became functus officio. The Tribunal held that it is not its role to decide whether UNCB is a technical body. That decision was made in Determination A and should be abided by both the Tribunal and the Respondent. Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant’s case concerned the same issue as the one addressed in Determination A, he was entitled to and did rely on the decision that in a case such as his management evaluation was not required by staff rules 11.2(b) and 11.4(b). MEU: The Tribunal noted that in exercising its powers to decide receivability of requests for management evaluation, MEU acts as a gatekeeper for staff members’ access to the formal part of the United Nations internal justice system. As a representative and delegate of the Secretary-General MEU is obliged to take a consistent and transparent stand on matters which impact on the accessibility of staff members to the internal justice system. ST/SGB/2010/9 requires MEU to be objective and impartial.