±¬ÁÏÍø

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...

The Tribunal noted that art. 12.3 of its Statute and art. 30 of its Rules of Procedure limit the scope of applications for interpretation to judgments. Neither the Tribunal¡¯s Statute nor its Rules of Procedure contemplate applications for interpretation with respect to orders. The Tribunal therefore found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The decision to temporarily withhold the Applicant¡¯s final entitlements pending the completion of the investigation by OAI into allegations of fraud, collusion, conflict of interest and misuse of authority was not receivable since it did not constitute an appealable administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The application was not receivable, ratione materiae, since the contested ¡°decision¡± did not have direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant took the decision to resign, notwithstanding being advised that in doing so a...

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant¡¯s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal¡¯s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant¡¯s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...

The Certificate of No Contest/Lump Sum that formalized the Applicant¡¯s agreed separation has all the hallmarks of a binding agreement freely entered into by the Applicant for a consideration which he would not otherwise have been entitled to, and there is no suggestion by the Applicant that it was procured by duress, misrepresentation or other impermissible consideration or action.; Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant did not clearly identify the decision(s) he sought to contest, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s claims all relate to his period of employment with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP, which...

On receivability: Applying the test of Gabaldon, even though all the conditions of staff rule 4.8 had not been fulfilled, the Applicant had locus standi and was legitimately entitled to similar rights as those of staff members and that the Organization must be regarded as having extended to her the protection of its administration of justice system. She held a valid contract, the scope of which must be determined when other issues are considered. The reach and application of Gabaldon is indeed limited and does not entitle the Applicant to take full benefit of the Staff Regulations regarding...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...

Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant¡¯s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant¡¯s request for...

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.