±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that throughout the process, the Applicant remained an IFAD staff member hence his application was not receivable, ratione personae, and the Tribunal was not competent to consider the application.

As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member¡¯s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on account of her being a former staff...

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.