±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her request was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first rejected his contention...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her claim was...