±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

The Tribunal rejected all of them as irreicevable: first, it found that the application concerning a decision to refer allegations of misconduct made against the Applicant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, was time-barred, as the Applicant had not filed her application within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the 45-day response period for management evaluation. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation for three other administrative acts she wished to contest, two of them being...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had missed the deadline to request management evaluation of the refusal to provide her with a badge; hence, her application was irreceivable ratione materiae in that respect. As for the denial of legal assistance, the Tribunal considered that in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, which lies in the fact that the relationship between the Applicant and her former supervisors in the Office of the Administration of Justice, including the Chief, OSLA, had completely broken down, the refusal to grant assistance to the Applicant through OSLA could...

The Tribunal found that the application deals with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal (Tintukasiri et al. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-526), and that it was not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute.

The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.

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...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...