Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as irreceivable. The Applicant had requested the Tribunal to order a rescission of the decision to permanently withdraw his MINUSCA¡¯s driver¡¯s permit. The Tribunal noted that this request had been satisfied by the Administration. The relief having been fully granted, there was no longer a justiciable matter before the Tribunal, thus rendering the application moot.

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, there was no decision imposing disciplinary or administrative measures. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of any administrative decision related to the conduct of the investigation. The failure to seek management evaluation before...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.

The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant¡¯s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.

An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member¡¯s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...