�山����

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

The UNDT found that OHRM’s decision not to consider (endorse) her for a temporary P-3 post in DM (Umoja) and to deny her conversion from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level was valid and lawful. The decision not to consider the applicant eligible for a temporary P-3 post was correct since she only fulfilled one of the mandatory and cumulative conditions – five years of professional experience – in November 2011. The Organization properly determined that the Applicant could not be converted from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level because there was no contractual relationship between the Applicant and...

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

The UNDT found that given that the Applicant failed to comply with the deadline for the filing of his request for management evaluation, his application was time-barred and his application was not receivable before the Tribunal.

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...