Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent¡¯s letter of 6 May 2015.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant challenged the decision that his request for compensation at the G-5 level would not be reviewed any further.
Legal Principle(s)
It is settled law that timelines as stipulated in article 7.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure and article 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute must be strictly observed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) has clearly and consistently pronounced on the necessity of strict adherence to filing deadlines. If a request for management evaluation is time-barred, the application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute forbids waiver of time limits for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has also affirmed that an untimely request for management evaluation bars applications before the Tribunal even if management evaluation was actually received. Article 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute stipulates that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The principle governing the issue of whether a reiteration of a decision already made constitutes a new decision for the purposes of article 7.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure and article 8.1(d)(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is settled.