Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT judgments: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

Outcome: The Applicant¡¯s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant¡¯s file and pay the Applicant six months¡¯ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...

Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP, in accordance with the practice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...