Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

As MSD is a technical body, the Applicant was required under staff rule 11.2(b) to submit his application against the ABCC¡¯s decision directly to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without first having recourse to MEU for review.; On the basis of the Applicant¡¯s own admission that no decision has been made in relation to his claim for the injuries to his legs and considering the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence, the claim against the SecretaryGeneral under this head must be dismissed on the ground that it is premature.

Section 3.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 imposes a ¡°duty¡± on the Administration ¡°to take all appropriate measures¡± with a view to ¡°promot[ing] a harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct¡±, but very limited statutory guidance is otherwise provided in the provision on what such measures could be in practice. The only example, at least as relevant to the present case, appears to be that ¡°complaints of prohibited conduct are promptly addressed in a fair and impartial manner¡±. A search of the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s jurisprudence reveals that the...

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel argues that ¡°technical difficulties¡± and an ¡°internal oversight¡± prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the ¡°error message¡± provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...

The reason given to the Applicant for the impugned decision, namely, the organizational restructuring at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, is supported by the facts. Evidence shows that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA suffered the significant financial shortfalls, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, facing such a precarious financial situation, undertook the genuine organizational restructuring which resulted in the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post and the termination of her appointment. While the Applicant claims improper motives, the Tribunal finds that she presented no supporting evidence and thus did not meet the burden of proof in this regard. The Organization¡¯s...

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.