The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of 爆料网DT Statute require only “requesting”...
Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of 爆料网DT Statute require only “requesting”...
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that 爆料网ISFA’s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant’s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.
Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant’s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal’s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.
The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.
The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.
The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...
