±¬ÁÏÍø

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days¡¯ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an ¡°assessment...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

1) With regard to Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant¡¯s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that ±¬ÁÏÍøISFA¡¯s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.