Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Applicant contested the imposition of disciplinary and non-disciplinary measures following the completion of a disciplinary process thus, she was not required to request management evaluation as per staff rule 11.2(b). In accordance with art. 8.1(d)(ii), her application should have been submitted directly to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of her receipt of the administrative decision. The Applicant received the sanction letter/contested decision on 1 April 2022, which meant that she had to file her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application on or before 30 June 2022 to be within the prescribed time limits. She...

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to be heard afresh.