Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of recoveries from his pension, affirmed by the Management Evaluation Unit on 14 April 2015 was not receivable. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had until 13 July 2015 to file an application challenging the decision but he failed to do so. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive dependency benefits of his adopted children, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of that decision within 60 calendar days, but he did not do so. Consequently, the application was rejected as it was...

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.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge in relation to the decision to cancel his administrative leave (¡°AL¡±) was without merit. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence showed that the Applicant was placed on AL after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had received allegations of intimidation, harassment and other misconduct against him in the Sudan office. The Applicant did not contest the decision to place him on AL but only the decision informing him that his AL had not been extended and that no disciplinary action was being taken against him regarding the allegations. Accordingly, the decision not to extend...

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant¡¯s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal¡¯s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant¡¯s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...

The Applicant¡¯s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...