����AV

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted the Applicants claim that they did not request management evaluation of the contested decision on the grounds that they relied on a previous position by the Administration in Tintukasiri et al. whereby “requests for management evaluation were not receivable ‘since the decision was taken pursuant to the advice from the [Local Salary Survey Committee (“LSCC”)] in conjunction with salary survey specialists, and as such of a technical body under the terms of staff rule 11.2(b)” and that, as per the Applicants’ claim, in that case, the UN MEU made a determination about LSCCs being “technical bodies” on behalf of the Secretary-General. The Tribunal observed that Administrative practices need to be consistent and uniform over a certain period of time so that staff members rely on and build legitimate expectations in relation to them. The Tribunal was of the view that the position adopted by the UN MEU in one or two cases does not constitute a consistent and coherent administrative practice that could lead the Applicants to build a legitimate expectation on which they could have relied upon and that, furthermore, it does not rise to the level of judicial precedent given the UN MEU’s nature as an administrative body within the Organization. Moreover, the Tribunal was of the view that the fact that the Secretary-General has delegated authority to the UN MEU to perform management evaluations on his behalf cannot lead to conclude that he is bound by MEU’s interpretation of such requirement in one or two specific situations. The Tribunal found that defining a technical body requires a specific delegation of authority to be exercised under the form of an administrative instruction. Finally, the Tribunal found that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory requirement in this case. As the Applicants’ failed to do so, their applications were deemed not receivable ratione materiae.