�山����

Regarding the Applicant’s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant’s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by the Applicant during the relevant time. The tasks clearly showed that the Applicant had not been deprived of the core functions foreseen by the terms of reference for his post. The Applicant did not dispute that he had performed those tasks, his major grievance being that because he had not acted as OiC, he had had no visibility. The Tribunal held that this aspect was neither decisive for the issue nor relevant, given the non-receivability of the OiC decision. The Tribunal further held that although the duties and tasks assigned to the Applicant may have been more mundane than acting as OiC, they apparently fully took up the Applicant’s time. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant was fully employed on his post, qualitatively and quantitatively speaking. The Tribunal, thus, held that there was no reviewable administrative decision amounting to stripping of the Applicant’s functions. The application was rejected in all respects.