Rule 11.2(d)

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the...

UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration’s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant’s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration’s subsequent change of approach. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims in this regard had become moot. UNAT held that, in rendering the Appellant’s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, UNDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the UNDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant’s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to UNDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months’ net base salary for moral damage.

Administration’s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal’s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...

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...

The Tribunal rejected all of them as irreicevable: first, it found that the application concerning a decision to refer allegations of misconduct made against the Applicant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, was time-barred, as the Applicant had not filed her application within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the 45-day response period for management evaluation. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation for three other administrative acts she wished to contest, two of them being...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. Contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the application was required to be submitted by 9 November 2014 and not by 9 October 2014, which would have afforded the Applicant only 60 calendar days instead of the 90 days stipulated in staff rule 11.4(a).