±¬ÁÏÍø

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.

The mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending ±¬ÁÏÍøAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are res iudicata.

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and considered by same. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.