¹ú²úAV

Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant’s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff rule 11.2(d). The Tribunal held that art. 8 does not require that the Administration respond to the request for management evaluation in order for an application to be received by the UNDT. Article 8(1)(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute, ensures the receivability of an application by the UNDT despite the failure of the Administration to respond. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was challenging the decision to terminate his continuing appointment in a case he had filed before the UNDT in 2016 and that this was the same administrative decision that he was challenging in this application. Further, the Tribunal noted that both applications were based on the same set of facts, raised the same legal issues, were predicated on the same management evaluation and contained the same arguments. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that this application was a replica of the 2016 application and dismissed it.