Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description. UNAT held that the letter conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant and that therefore, the time limit to contest the decision began as of the date of receipt of that letter. UNAT held that the appeal rested upon misguided grounds and the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the AJAB committed an error of law when it considered that her appeal was not receivable. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s demand for referral for accountability due to the delay in the internal appeal process. UNAT held that there was no need to address the merits of the case. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.