Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

The timely rescission of the publication of the Letter negated any potential harm or breach of the Applicant¡¯s rights that may have occurred in the present case.; The Administration took the implicit decision of not providing the Applicant with his requested remedy to the publication of the Letter.; For the Tribunal to grant the Applicant unfettered access to iSeek for the; purpose of publishing a rebuttal letter without having it reviewed by the iSeek team to make sure that it conforms with its publishing guidelines would be akin to the Tribunal ordering a potential breach of the iSeek...

Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant¡¯s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s rights as a staff member.

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members¡¯ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.