±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU¡¯s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

Appealable administrative decision: Both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on the Tribunal¡¯s website are matters of internal organization which do not constitute acts adversely affecting staff members¡¯ rights.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant had failed to take the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. However, it observed that while failure to request management evaluation denies the Applicant access to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction at present, the Applicant was never formally notified in writing of the administrative decision or the reasons therefore. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the situation in this case arose through an alleged mistake of the Administration and through no fault of the Applicant.

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.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant contested the administrative decision after the 60 day deadline for requesting a management evaluation had passed. Her Application was therefore not receivable as the Tribunal is not competent to extend the deadline for a request for management evaluation.

Sub judice: The sub judice rule restricts the publication of prejudicial information relating to proceedings that are current before a court or pending judicial consideration and determination. Publication of prejudicial information about a person will not attract liability for contempt if proceedings involving that person are not yet pending (although a publication in this situation may attract liability on other legal grounds, for example, a defamation action in the domestic courts). Publication of material on matters that are sub judice may result in contempt of court, punishable in many...

Receivability ¨C Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.