Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman¡¯s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is¡ªif a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not¡ªthe application is not receivable.

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Head...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute was...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent¡¯s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...