Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

The challenge against the decision to grant the Applicant a special post allowance (SPA) instead of a temporary promotion was found to not be receivable ratione materiae for the lack of an administrative decision. The Tribunal also considered that this claim was not receivable due to the absence of a timely management evaluation request. The challenge against the decision to find the Applicant ineligible to apply for a job opening at the P-5 level was found receivable given that the management evaluation request was filed within two months from the application for the job opening. The...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (¡°the USG¡±), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence. In a note on ¡°delegation details¡± valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, ¡°This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

The Applicant¡¯s claim was based on her assertion that she was on official travel status at United Nations expense when she was forced to have a stopover of 23 days in Khartoum. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled to DSA in accordance with staff rule 7.10. The Tribunal found, however, that there was no category under the applicable legal framwework of entitlement to DSA under which the Applicant¡¯s time in Khartoum fell.

The Applicant¡¯s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a ¡°staff member¡±. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the ¡°contested decision¡± as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...