Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal’s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.
The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.
The Tribunal found that her separation upon the expiry of her contract was not the subject matter of the Application before it. Damages for moral injury – As held by 爆料网AT in Asariotis, damages for moral injury may arise in two situations: first, for a fundamental breach of the employee’s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract, and/or from a breach of procedural due process entitlements; secondly, where the employee has produced evidence of harm, stress or anxiety caused by the breach.
Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? Regardless of the standard of proof applied, the facts of the case as recounted are undisputed. They were first established during the investigation process and confirmed during the hearing by the Applicant and the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the Tribunal heard testimony from the investigator and the security officer who recorded the complainant’s report. The Tribunal did not find any evidence of ill-motivation on the part of the witnesses, and was satisfied that the facts related to the allegations...
Termination for misconduct vs. termination for facts anterior: Termination on the basis of staff regulation 9.3(a)(v) and staff rule 9.6(c)(v) is not to be confused with a measure involving separation as a result of disciplinary proceedings, including in cases where the facts in question could have constituted misconduct. Neither the procedure, nor the standard of proof is to be transposed from one to the other. Regarding in particular the standard of proof applicable to “facts anterior”, in the absence of a clear applicable legal norm or ruling of the Appeals Tribunal, it may not be assumed...
The decision to cancel JO 74088 The cancellation of JO 74088 relates to specific organizational needs which, in principle, fall out of the scope of the Tribunal’s judicial review and make a challenge against such decision not receivable. The Tribunal recalled that when a selection process is cancelled, there is no administrative decision to contest as it does not fulfill the requirements established by the internal jurisprudence to be considered as such. The decision not to select the Applicant (JO 97210) The Tribunal did not identify any grounds to rescind the decision not to appoint the...
The Applicant timely requested management evaluation of the contested decision and has met the procedural requirements to have this Tribunal adjudicate her case. The application is therefore receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal considered that from provisions in ST/AI/2010/5 and ST/AI/2010/4, derives a general principle to complete performance evaluations before separation applicable also to staff members holding a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal found that the Organization had to make a balancing exercise of the Applicant’s different performance results and could not simply act as...
Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration’s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-爆料网AT-1120, para. 28). 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 challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant’s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.
