±¬ÁÏÍø

Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement ¡°measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures¡±. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration¡¯s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had no standing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from assuming a...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant¡¯s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...