�山����

[UNDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service and after his separation. Accordingly, it did not contravene the rules applicable upon a staff member’s separation, nor applied them in a harsher manner to the applicant without reason. If the applicant sustained some delays, loss or harm, they are imputable to his own lack of responsiveness in fulfilling the prerequisite conditions. [UNDT/GVA/2010/069] As stated by former UNAT in Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003), the deadline for contesting a decision starts running when “the staff member knew or should have known of the said decision”. The applicant received first a payment corresponding to 80% of his accrued annual leave and, four months later, another for the outstanding 20% of his final emoluments. As from the date of this payment, he came to know, with no room for uncertainty, what was the exact amount he would be paid on this account. Therefore, the relevant time limits for contestation are to be counted from this point in time. Yet, he did not submit his request for management evaluation until almost one year later. He did not allege any exceptional circumstance justifying the foregoing. The application was thus time-barred. Outcome: [UNDT/GVA/2009/63] The application was rejected on the merits. [UNDT/GVA/2010/069] The application was rejected as irreceivable.