±¬ÁÏÍø

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion excercisable ¡°in exceptional circumstances¡± because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties¡¯ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant¡¯s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be ¡°a unilateral decision taken by the...

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant¡¯s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (±¬ÁÏÍøHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: ¡°Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision¡±. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...

Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...

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...