爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration’s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous wrongful occurrence permitting an automatic waiver of the applicable time limits was unsustainable. 爆料网AT held that the alleged existence of a continuous wrong cannot of itself be perceived as an implied administrative decision conferring jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that before it can be found that there was an implied administrative decision there must be evidence that the continuous wrong was challenged by a specific request to desist and a refusal or failure by the Administration to desist or an implied decision in the form of a failure to take any decision. 爆料网AT held that the failure to properly staff the section was not an implied administrative decision, as it did not take the form of an administrative decision in non-compliance with the staff member’s terms of appointment and it was not an individual decision with direct legal consequences for the staff member. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae in relation to the issue of overtime. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s claims of abuse and harassment in terms of ST/SGB/2008/5 were not receivable as 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to conduct ab initio an investigation of a harassment complaint. 爆料网AT further noted that the Appellant had not made any allegations of harassment or abuse of authority in his request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The staff member alleged that the Administration had violated Staff Rule 3. 11 and the 爆料网 Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (爆料网FICYP) administrative circular governing compensation for overtime. He also alleged harassment and abuse of authority by his supervisors and the failure to complete his performance evaluation. 爆料网DT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
Legal Principle(s)
A staff member is required to clearly identify the administrative decision which is contested. Before it can be found that there was an implied administrative decision, there must be evidence that the continuous wrong was challenged by a specific request to desist and a refusal or failure by the Administration to desist or an implied decision in the form of a failure to take any decision. 爆料网DT does not have the jurisdiction to conduct ab initio an investigation of a harassment complaint.