±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that she was evaluated fairly with respect to both the written test and the interview, which was based on appropriate criteria. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the selection process was not biased against the Applicant and that consideration of her candidacy was not marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or result in a failure to give her proper consideration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application.

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal¡¯s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-457 and Nartey 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.