�鶹��ý

Receivability –The Applicant’s patience in waiting for the Secretary-General to decide on when to grant him appropriate remedies cannot be used against him. It is not in contention that as soon as he was informed that the Secretary-General had decided that the appropriate remedies he was promised meant no remedies at all, the Applicant approached the Tribunal. The Applicant’s claims in regard to the other administrative decisions of tampering with a published vacancy announcement and the membership of the former incumbent of the position on the interview panel which were affirmed in management evaluation as not being erroneous administrative decisions are not receivable because the Applicant did not challenge those affirmations within the applicable time limits. Remedy - The Secretary-General’s decision not to grant a remedy to the Applicant for violation of his due process rights because there was no abuse of authority against the said Applicant is perverse. The Secretary-General’s admission of liability effectively superseded the administrative decision complained of in the same way that thefavourable outcome of rebuttal proceedings would replace or substitute the poor rating which is the subject matter of the rebuttal process.It is a well-established principle of Law and Equity that “ubi jus ibi remedium” (where there is a right, there is a remedy). The Respondent Secretary-General having admitted that the legal right of the Applicant to due process was violated by his agents, this Tribunal has a legal duty to enforce that right. Weight to be attached to management evaluation decisions - Because management evaluation is not window- dressing but a compulsory first step to be taken before a dispute can go to the formal system, a great deal of weight is attached to it. That is the philosophy that ensured the establishment of such a mechanism by the General Assembly.