±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified ±¬ÁÏÍøDP as the respondent in the present case because it was ±¬ÁÏÍøDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/036...

The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent¡¯s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.

Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant¡¯s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.

A a holder of an ±¬ÁÏÍø Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

/

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.