51�Թ�

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant’s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

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.

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The UNDT found that the candidates’ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The UNDT found the Applicant’s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

The UNDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office “subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office”. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member’s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

The UNDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the 51�Թ� and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The UNDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The UNDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.