�山����

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate “from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy” is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant’s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU’s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

Administration’s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal’s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the UNDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the UNDT Statute that the UNDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process.Outcome: Application rejected on receivability

Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the UNDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...

Not only did Counsel for the Respondent initially refuse to take part in the proceedings because submissions were being filed and submitted through the eFiling portal, she further failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Order granting her an extension of 30 days. This failure, in the circumstances is an abuse of the process of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is entitled to enter, on its own Motion, a default judgment in this case. This means that in the present case, the Tribunal shall rely on the facts as presented by the Applicant and apply the relevant law to these facts. Upon his separation from...