爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, under Article 11.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited 爆料网DT from extending the deadline for management evaluation, stated the reasons, facts, and law on which they were based and were sufficient to dispose of the application under consideration. 爆料网AT held that these decisions were correct and that 爆料网DT fully complied with its obligations under Article 11.1 of its Statute. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law on the part of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a post of Director. 爆料网DT rejected the application as time-barred. 爆料网DT found that an email from the 爆料网CTAD Secretary-General to all 爆料网CTAD staff members constituted a written notification to the Applicant. 爆料网DT found that a subsequent response from the Officer-in-Charge of HRMS merely confirmed the previous decision and could not be used to reopen the time limits for submission of a request for management evaluation.
Legal Principle(s)
Staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules applicable to them.