Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute (Evan...

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. All three conditions must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. The Applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision on two grounds: a) The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework was inconsistent with staff rule 10.4...

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant¡¯s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.

The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.