Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a communication conveying discontent to management will amount to a management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the competent authority, which is specifically empowered to look into a contested decision to evaluate and consider whether it has been made pursuant to the administrative issuances of the...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

The Tribunal found the application receivable since the contested decision was a new and separate aministrative decision distinct from any decisions issued by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Board in relation to their pensions. The Secretary-General decided not to grant the relief requested by the Applicant in the contested decision and thus this is a separate administrative decision.; There was no mention in the Applicants¡¯ acceptance of their appointments confirming that they were also provided with a copy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, being therefore aware of their content and accepting their contracts to be...

The Tribunal notes that, while the non-selection decision is not explicitly mentioned in the Applicant¡¯s list of impugned decisions in his management evaluation request, it could be regarded as subsumed under the description of ¡°preselecting particular posts to go to external candidates¡± and the suggestion that the process was not transparent but ¡°opaque¡±. The Applicant did request management evaluation of the non-selection decisions and that his claim in this regard is receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). As the Applicant failed to...

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

1) With regard to Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The decision to refuse further medical evacuation was first notified to the Applicant on 15 July 2014 but he did not request management evaluation until 29 January 2017 after later requests for medical evacuation had been refused. The application was not receivable because subsequent reiterations of the same decision did not have the effect of resetting the clock for management evaluation.

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.