�山����

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87–88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new administrative decision regarding the Applicant’s entitlement to a standard enhanced separation package, taking into account relevant factors and considerations. Thus, the decision of 31 August 2011 constituted a separate administrative decision. The UNDT further noted that para. 88 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 specifically stated that the order in para. 87 of that Judgment was “without prejudice to the Applicant in later filing an appeal of the determination of the Respondent on termination indemnity, if necessary”. The UNDT found that that order was not vacated by the Appeals Tribunal, and it was clearly the basis upon which the Applicant was pursuing this case. Administrative decision made pursuant to Tribunal’s order: The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new administrative decision regarding the Applicant’s entitlement to a standard enhanced separation package, taking into account relevant factors and considerations. Thus, the decision of 31 August 2011 constituted a separate administrative decision that the Applicant now contests.