Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against her first reporting officer¡¯s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/030 and 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant¡¯s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant¡¯s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...

When the Applicant sought management evaluation of the imposition of a condition to the extension of his fixed-term appointment, he did not contest the actual non-extension of his appointment which was yet to be taken at that time. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment before he filed the present application. Accordingly, any appeal of the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be receivable ratione materiae. The imposition of the condition of resignation did not in itself have a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s...