Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

The Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

Receivability: Confirmative decisions do not reset the clock with respect to statutory time limits; however, if, despite having issued an earlier decision denying benefits, 1) the Organization undertakes a new verification procedure under the terms of the applicable rules at the time of said earlier decision (in this case ST/SGB/2013/4), 2) that process is not finalized, and 3) a subsequent decision denying benefits is taken under a new set of rules (in this case ST/SGB/2003/14/Rev. 1), the latter decision constitutes a new, final decision, and statutory time limits start to run anew. Non...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.