Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal noted that at the time the application was filed, there was a contestable administrative decision. However, subsequent to the filing, the Respondent overturned its initial finding of ineligibility and by so doing it expunged the administrative decision upon which the application was predicated. Consequently, there was no longer a contestable administrative decision to be considered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant¡¯s father had the legal status of an independent contractor for the WFP Mombasa office, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s father was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and as such, the Applicant has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...