�山����

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that “a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis” (see Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the decision under art. 8.4 of its Statute would start. The three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute started to run from 18 February 2019 in this case. The Applicant filed his application on 13 September 2019, i.e., around seven months later after his receipt of the contested decision, thereby respecting the three-year statutory time limit under art. 8.4 of its Statute. Accordingly, the application is receivable. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has the status of Secretariat staff. Whether the Applicant is eligible to be granted a continuing appointment ICTY, like its successor, IRMCT, is a subsidiary organ of the Security Council and thus a non-Secretariat entity. Therefore, the Applicant was not working at the United Nations Secretariat as required by staff rule 4.16(b)(ii) when he participated in the 2010 ICTY G to P competitive examination, nor was he recruited to the Professional category at the United Nations Secretariat pursuant to staff rule 4.16 after the 2010 examination. In any event, General Assembly resolution 65/247 explicitly excludes international or locally recruited staff recruited for service in ICTR or in ICTY from being eligible for a continuing appointment, unless they are “successful candidates from national competitive recruitment examinations and staff from language services after two years of probationary service”. Therefore, the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for a continuing appointment at least until 31 December 2017 when he left ICTY for IRMCT. Thus, the Applicant has failed to establish that the requirement excluding ICTY staff members from eligibility for continuing appointment does not apply to him. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds no merit in the Applicant’s claim that he is entitled to a continuing appointment pursuant to staff rule 4.14. The Applicant has not met the burden of proving that the contested decision is unlawful. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal DECIDES to reject the application in its entirety.