±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at ±¬ÁÏÍøON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis as both the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and his application before the Tribunal were time-barred. Receivability: A new administrative decision that supersedes the contested decision cannot be submitted to the Tribunal¡¯s review through additional submissions in the case under consideration. It ought to be challenged through another application before the Tribunal. The deadline to file a request for management evaluation starts from the moment the staff member was made aware of the...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.