Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant duly performed the obligation to inform the Administration within the stipulated timelines of his ill health and diligently initiated and maintained communication with his supervisor, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS Human Resources Section (HRS), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Services Division (MSD). He sent all documentation requested of him in that regard. The review and non-certification of the Applicant¡¯s sick leave were unduly delayed by the MSD and that the said delay was prejudicial to the Applicant. MSD and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS/HRS owed a duty to the Applicant to advise him of the option...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and that the Applicant did not show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant¡¯s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

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...