�山����

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as time-barred, as the Applicant failed to submit a timeous request for administrative review/management evaluation.

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant’s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.

The UNDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The UNDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-UNAT-345, MEU’s belated...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-UNAT-457 and Nartey 2015-UNAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

The UNDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the UNDT within the prescribed time period. The UNDT found that UNDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the “suspension” of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant’s late filing of her application with the UNDT. Nevertheless, the UNDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The UNDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The UNDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the UNDT Statute. The UNDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant’s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (“UNDP”), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at �山����Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant’s arguments...