The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.
The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...
Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant¡¯s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...
The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...
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 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 Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...
Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...
The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...
The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...
