±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant¡¯s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

Since the Applicant only pointed out that the non-implementation of the indicated provision had restricted her options to be selected for posts in some duty stations, she failed to identify any such administrative decision. The Tribunal stressed that a selection process involves a series of steps which lead to an administrative decision. It stated that only if the Applicant contested the outcome of a selection process for a specific post (the administrative decision), would the Tribunal be competent to hear and pass judgement on her application.

The Tribunal highlights the necessity of management evaluation, quoting Nwuke and Caldarone. It is not enough to merely initiate the procedure. On the contrary, the result of Management evaluation has to be awaited generally, before an application may be submitted to the Tribunal. It is not within the Applicant's discretion to evade management evaluation which is considered useless. Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead¡¤of...

A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory with the exception of disciplinary cases. It is clear from the applicant¡¯s submissions that he was well aware that the decision to stop the payment of his salary and the decision not to renew his appointment are two distinct administrative decisions. The applicant failed to request an administrative review or management evaluation of the decision not to pay his salary. Outcome: The application is not receivable.

The Applicant can only challenge the decisions before the Joint Appeals Board and subsequently before the judge only the decisions for which she requested a management evaluation.
Since, neither in her introductory application nor in subsequent briefs or orally at the hearing, the applicant made explicit reference to the arguments contained in the request for management evaluation. The judge limits himself to examining the arguments expressly raised.
The refusal of the hierarchical superior to propose a staff member for promotion is an administrative decision that can be challenged. In the...

The applicant submits that the decision not to promote her is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Staff Rules stipulating that the main factors to be considered with regard to promotions are efficiency, competence and integrity. However, the applicant does not specify in what respects the contested decision violates the said provisions and thus does not enable the judge to rule on these assertions. The principal reason for the refusal to recommend promotion was that the applicant had not been recommended in 2007. While the applicant is contesting that...

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.