±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to consider the issue...

Need to observe time-limits: It is for the staff member who sought management evaluation of a decision, once he/she has been informed that the Secretary-General issued his response, to take cognizance of the content of this response as soon as possible and ensure compliance with applicable deadlines.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation within 60 days of receiving notification of the contested decision, as required by the Staff Rules. The Respondent produced minutes of four meetings held in June 2014, submitting that in the three of the four meetings, the Applicant was informed that her fixed-term appointment would expire and would not be renewed. The Applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes. A hearing on receivability was held at which each of the participants in the June 2014...