51³Ô¹Ï

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.

Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman’s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.

With respect to the Applicant’s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the UNIFIL Head...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.