Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal noted that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the UNOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. The Applicant claimed that he was only officially made aware of his non-selection for the post when a formal announcement was made on 1 March 2018, which stated that another candidate had been chosen for the position. The Tribunal found that this claim was ill-founded, as a verbal unequivocal communication is sufficient for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) (see Auda 2017-UNAT-746). The Tribunal considered that the current case was distinguishable from Jean 2017UNAT-743 and Babiker 2016-UNAT-672. In this case, it was not disputed that the Applicant and the Deputy Director had a phone conversation to discuss the Applicant’s non-selection, and this is further supported by contemporaneous email communications. Even if they discussed other matters during the phone conversation, the record makes it clear that the purpose and content of the communication was to notify the Applicant of the contested decision and there is no evidence to support the claim that this was only an informal communication to be followed by an official written notification. In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation of the contested decision, filed only on 20 March 2018, namely after the expiration of the 60-day time limit set out in staff rule 11.2(c), was late and therefore that the application was not receivable.