±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one¡¯s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡±) in Haq and Kane 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was ¡°clear and unambiguous¡± enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant¡¯s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.