The Applicant’s appeal against her own selection for the TJO is not receivable because it is time-barred under staff rule 11.2(c). As no reasonable remedy would be available for the Tribunal to rectify the situation to the relevant applicant’s advantage, the appeal would only be of speculative interest. In the present case, the Applicant basically appeals against herself being selected for and appointed to a job, which is evidently an administrative decision to her advantage. Consequently, the Applicant’s appeal of the decision to recruit her against the TJO is not receivable as it does not...
Rule 11.2 (c)
Showing 31 - 36 of 36
The application is not receivable. The management evaluation request was not receivable because the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.
The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The contested decision to place a note on the Applicant’s Official Status File is not an appealable administrative decision as it has no direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of his appointment. The Applicant should have requested a management evaluation within 60 days from the notification of the contested decisions on 5 August 2017, but instead he requested a management evaluation on 3 November 2017, more than 60 days later. Therefore, the application is not receivable as time-barred. The contested decision not to...
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
Management Evaluation
UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. UNDT dismissed the application.
The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.
Performance management
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Temporal (ratione temporis)
The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was “clear and unambiguous” enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant’s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.