Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.

As the Applicant withdrew claim, there was no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the case, it is therefore closed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute was...

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination ¡°on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners¡±. The scope of the ABCC¡¯s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above).; As convincingly explained by the Applicant¡¯s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it¡ªPTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant¡¯s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent¡¯s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors¡¯ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant¡¯s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office¡¯s recommendation only required that ¡°efforts be made¡±, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...