±¬ÁÏÍø

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

The Applicant contests OSLA's decisions of 5 November 2013 not to represent him in two of the cases he had at the time pending at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. It rejected the application on the merits, on the grounds that the decisions constituted a legal exercise of discretion on the part of OSLA, which had provided the Applicant with extensive legal assistance, had carefully considered all the issues and gave valid reasons on why it would not represent the Applicant. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that OSLA...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

The ST/SGB/2008/5 requirement for the administration to act promptly on complaints of prohibited activity was not observed in the case of the Applicant¡¯s complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT required more information on the present state of the process and held that this case was suitable to remand for institution or correction of the required procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT suspended the proceedings and orderd the Secretary-General to advise ±¬ÁÏÍøDT of the present position of the investivgation into the Applicant¡¯s complaint and whether he concurs with the remand of the case for institution and correction of the procedure under ST...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant¡¯s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claims of moral damage are receivable and well founded and he is awarded USD1,000 as compensation for anxiety. The Tribunal finds that it is incorrect to characterize the decision to hire new staff members as being purely preparatory in nature as the contested decision was in fact implemented and the outcome of the selection process could have adversely affected the Applicant. It is therefore a contestable administrative decision. Further, even if a decision is rescinded, if an applicant can show that there was a causal link between the breach on the...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.