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.

The Applicant did not mention a relevant experience in his personal history profile. Although the Applicant disagreed with the hiring manager¡¯s evaluation of the relevance of his experience, he failed to establish that the hiring manager¡¯s assessment was unreasonable. The hiring manager did not introduce additional criteria to evaluate the job candidates. The minimum work experience requirements for the position were not an unlawful deviation from the generic job profile for the position or unduly restrictive. The hiring manager¡¯s decision to not administer a written test was within his...

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

The Applicant did not respond to a case management order. She was therefore no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the proceedings which were deemed to have been abandoned. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.

Following careful review of the facts as they appear in the pleadings, and the accompanying documentary evidence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process has been or should be rebutted. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent acted improperly in selecting the recommended candidate, or that he was motivated by any extraneous factors in not selecting the Applicant.; The Applicant was given full and fair consideration and the selection decision was proper and lawful.

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...