The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant’s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.
The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant’s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM’s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM’s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...
The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal’s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...
Request for reconsideration of an administrative decision - According to the applicable rules and consistent with the principle of expeditiousness in administrative proceedings, a request for reconsideration of the decision by the first instance administrative organ does not have a suspensive effect on the deadlines for management evaluation.
Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the 爆料网DT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.
The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
爆料网DT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. 爆料网DT rejected the application as not receivable.
The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...
The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.
