Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The Applicant did not prove that any exceptional circumstance beyond her control prevented her from filing the application on time. The Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity is granted to ensure the protection of the medical information discussed in the case. Related

The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant¡¯s rights and obligations...