Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March 2015, which rejected the Applicant¡¯s recourse application for procedural defect, did not create a new right for the Applicant to challenge the original, substantive,; decision not to promote him to the P-5 level and, therefore, did not consider it for the purpose of art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.; The Tribunal found that the decision on non-promotion insofar as the Applicant was concerned was notified to him on 20 October 2014 and not subject to any further review. The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, submitted on 1 May 2015, was thus time-barred. Consequently, the application before the Tribunal was irreceivable, ratione materiae (Egglesfield 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-402); Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis as it was filed four days after the expiry of the 90-day statutory deadline set forth in art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Applicant filed his application before the Tribunal on 1 February 2016, that is four days after the applicable deadline, which expired on 28 January 2016.