Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Administrative Services Division had...

The application in respect of the alleged non-compliance with the second agreement is premature, and as such not receivable, because the Applicant has not followed the mandatory dispute resolution process contained in said settlement agreement concluded in July 2017. The Applicant¡¯s multiples and generic complaints that the Organization has failed to follow its own rules and procedures, and her assertions regarding the conduct of her current and former reporting officers at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC do not constitute administrative decisions under Article 2(1)(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Tribunal DECIDES to...

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

The application is not receivable. The management evaluation request was not receivable because the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The irregularities detected in the selection process were of such gravity¡ªnot keeping any written record of the contested administrative decision, an undefined decisionmaker, and flawed reasons and justifications¡ªthat they cannot be regarded as minor procedural or substantive errors that did not impact the outcome of the non-selection decision. Accordingly, the Respondent was not been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature for the post was fully and fairly considered. Four other candidates had been shortlisted for the written test for the relevant post. Had the Applicant...

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The contested decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File is not an appealable administrative decision as it has no direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of his appointment. The Applicant should have requested a management evaluation within 60 days from the notification of the contested decisions on 5 August 2017, but instead he requested a management evaluation on 3 November 2017, more than 60 days later. Therefore, the application is not receivable as time-barred. The contested decision not to...

On the first issue of placing of the note on the Applicant¡¯s personnel file, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not dispute that the Respondent complied with ST/AI/292 which governs placement of adverse materials on personnel files. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent acted within the law. The Applicant also provided his comments on the note. On that basis, the application on the first issue was found not receivable as it did not disclose any administrative decision that had any direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of his employment. On the second issue...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant identified the contested decision as ¡°misconduct allegations¡± made against her. It was clear that the Administration was yet to take a decision whether or not to discipline her. Allegations of misconduct are only a prefatory act, from which no direct consequences stem for the terms of the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the application was found not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision and it was dismissed.

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration¡¯s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1120, para. 28). The...