Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Flekal, en acceptant le renvoi de la plainte pour harc¨¨lement le 3 mars 2024 en vue d¡¯une intervention de la direction, avait en substance renonc¨¦ ¨¤ son droit de saisir les tribunaux pour absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur ses plaintes pour harc¨¨lement, y compris pour intimidation. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯instruction technique pertinente du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne, l¡¯intimidation ne constitue pas une cat¨¦gorie distincte de faute professionnelle, mais est consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une forme de harc¨¨lement.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦galement renonc¨¦ ¨¤ sa...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait remarquer que la d¨¦cision de soumettre M. Flekal ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure d¡¯OTI ne constituait qu¡¯une ¨¦tape interm¨¦diaire du processus de gestion des performances et n¡¯avait eu aucun impact direct ni aucune cons¨¦quence d¨¦favorable sur ses conditions de nomination ou son contrat de travail; il ne s¡¯agissait donc pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours judiciaire.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite pour raisons m¨¦dicales, d¨¦clar¨¦ inapte au service et b¨¦n¨¦ficiait d¡¯une pension d¡¯invalidit¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite de l¡¯Agence en raison du non...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que toute contestation quant ¨¤ la port¨¦e d¡¯un jugement devait ¨ºtre soulev¨¦e dans le cadre d¡¯un recours form¨¦ contre le jugement au fond. M. Odat n¡¯a pas interjet¨¦ appel contre le jugement de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le jugement rendu ult¨¦rieurement par le Tribunal disciplinaire de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA concernant sa demande
d¡¯interpr¨¦tation ne constituait pas un nouveau jugement au sens de l¡¯article 2 du Statut du Tribunal d¡¯appel, et que, par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯appel de M. Odat n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.