±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

Art. 8.1(i) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant has failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for...

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL Head...

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is¡ªif a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not¡ªthe application is not receivable.

The final decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration¡¯s own action or by the Tribunal¡¯s judgment, should the Applicant¡¯s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment as it merely...

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT statute was...