±¬ÁÏÍø

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable because it did not meet the conditions of an appealable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the ±¬ÁÏÍø, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application.

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...