�山����

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where a response to a management request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response was due to file an application to the UNDT. UNAT further noted that when a response is received but after the expiration of that 90-day period, as in this case, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with the UNDT. With respect to the issue on UNDT’s discretion in refusing the Appellant’s request to extend the time for the filing of the application to challenge the separation decision, UNAT found no merit in the submission that UNDT erred in its interpretation of Eng (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-520) or in finding that no exceptional circumstances existed. UNAT found that UNDT correctly noted that the case was applied in a number of judgments of which the Appellant’s OSLA representative would have been aware, and that it is well settled that ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not re-set the applicable time limits. With respect to the issue of receivability on the challenge of the Appellant’s non-selection for CISS post, UNAT found that it is trite law at this juncture that in the context of a case such as the present the request for management evaluation is a prerequisite for UNDT to entertain the challenge to the Appellant’s non-selection. With respect to the issue related to the existence of request for management evaluation in respect of the non-selection decision, UNAT found that the Appellant had timely sought management evaluation of his non-selection by virtue of the communication sent on his behalf on 14 November 2014, requests which were repeated in his e-mail of 2 December 2014. To that end, UNAT held that UNDT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed on 6 March 2015 and, thus, erred in holding to the contrary. With respect to the issue of award cost against the Appellant, UNAT found that the circumstances did not merit an award of costs against the Appellant as the number of filings did not reach the threshold of “manifestly abusing” the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal succeeded in part; UNDT’s finding on the non-receivability of the challenge to the non-selection decision was vacated and the matter was remanded to UNDT for consideration on the merits. The costs order against the Appellant was also vacated. The rest of UNDT’s judgment was affirmed.