±¬ÁÏÍø

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant¡¯s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.

For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

As MSD is a technical body, the Applicant was required under staff rule 11.2(b) to submit his application against the ABCC¡¯s decision directly to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT without first having recourse to MEU for review.; On the basis of the Applicant¡¯s own admission that no decision has been made in relation to his claim for the injuries to his legs and considering the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence, the claim against the SecretaryGeneral under this head must be dismissed on the ground that it is premature.

The Registry of the Tribunal has, in this case, tried to get in touch with the Applicant and her Counsel on record to no avail. While the Applicant has not expressly indicated a desire to abandon proceedings, the Tribunal is in a position where it simply cannot find the Applicant or Counsel acting on her behalf and so, can only assume that she is no longer interested in pursuing this matter any further.

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.