±¬ÁÏÍø

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the application irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the application irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and that there was no exercise...

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The decision to refuse further medical evacuation was first notified to the Applicant on 15 July 2014 but he did not request management evaluation until 29 January 2017 after later requests for medical evacuation had been refused. The application was not receivable because subsequent reiterations of the same decision did not have the effect of resetting the clock for management evaluation.

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA before the Tribunal.

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties¡¯ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant¡¯s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be ¡°a unilateral decision taken by the...