±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability Its well-established jurisprudence that under staff rule 11.2(c), a decision is only reviewable by the Dispute Tribunal if the Applicant has timely sought management evaluation of such decision. A request for management evaluation is a sine qua non condition to have access to the internal justice system as per article 2.1 and 8.1.c) of its Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). Access to justice is not an absolute right and procedural limitations, such as this one, are compatible with the nature and scope of access to justice, provided that they are prescribed by law and do not impair...

The decision to cancel JO 74088 The cancellation of JO 74088 relates to specific organizational needs which, in principle, fall out of the scope of the Tribunal¡¯s judicial review and make a challenge against such decision not receivable. The Tribunal recalled that when a selection process is cancelled, there is no administrative decision to contest as it does not fulfill the requirements established by the internal jurisprudence to be considered as such. The decision not to select the Applicant (JO 97210) The Tribunal did not identify any grounds to rescind the decision not to appoint the...

The Tribunal found that the post encumbered by the Applicant was abolished due to a restructuring exercise in ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT linked to budgetary restrictions and the implementation of Umoja, which rendered the Applicant¡¯s position redundant. The Tribunal noted that the Organization is not bound to initiate a formal consultation process with a staff member before deciding to abolish his/her post. In any event, consultation is not equivalent to negotiation, and it is not necessary for the Administration to secure consent or agreement of the consulted party. The Tribunal found that the Organization did...

According to section 9.4 of the staff selection system, a Hiring Manager may lawfully select from a pool of pre-screened candidates without further assessment or referral to a central review body. However, in the case at hand, the Hiring Manager decided to establish a Panel of three senior language professionals to conduct informal interviews with the pre-selected candidates, including the Applicant. There is no provision in the Staff Rules preventing these interviews from being held in Russian. The Applicant further contends that he was discriminated since he has been serving in a Regional...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had imposed a harsher sanction on the Applicant than was necessary. The sanction was found to be disproportionate and manifestly abusive in relation to the circumstances faced by the Applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to replace the original disciplinary sanction for another one with less gravity, namely-separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was unlawful based on the Respondent¡¯s admission that ¡°although there were legitimate reasons to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post, the decision to do so, which led to the non-extension of her appointment [¡­] was based, in part, on flawed considerations¡±. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. Remedies The Tribunal noted that the Applicant worked as an Operations Manager, at the NO-C level, in the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Morocco Country Office. She worked on a fixed-term appointment since February 2010...

Procedural issues Respondent¡¯s challenge to the admissibility of certain documents Art. 18 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure contains the set of norms applicable to evidence. However, except for article 18.6, there is no specific provision in relation to admissibility of evidence based on recordings made without consent. The Tribunal finds that the transcript of a meeting the Applicant recorded is not admissible in the proceedings because it is tainted by the fact that one of the participants at the meeting was not aware that the meeting was being recorded. The Applicant cannot make use of...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

Management evaluation request The ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policies and Procedures Manual provides that they shall be submitted using a form annexed to said Manual and sent to a precise email address. While the Tribunal recognizes that the Applicant has not followed the established formalities to request management evaluation, i.e., use of a form and a specified email address, it cannot be overlooked that he exercised due diligence to ensure that his documented request reached the Executive Director, ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA and that, moreover, his request was acknowledged. The latter, in turn, brings the Tribunal to conclude that...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...

The Respondent requested the Tribunal to redact the names of the victim and her family from ¡°any public filings in this case¡±. The Tribunal considered the request reasonable and decided to refrain from using the victim¡¯s name as well as the name of the members of her family in its judgment to preserve their privacy and to protect them from any negative repercussion. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Since the Applicant had been working for the Organization since...

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as ¡°recognized expenses¡± unless one of the exceptions set out in...

Considering that the Respondent did not contest the merits of the allegations as set out in the applications, the Tribunal found that the contested decisions, i.e., to remove the Applicant from his position, to place him on SLWFP and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. The Tribunal considered that the decision to remove the Applicant from his position was, in fact, subsumed in the ultimate decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, having found that both decisions...

The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant¡¯s characterization of the contested decision as a ¡°written reprimand¡± in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (¡°MTS¡±), the Applicant¡¯s claim in this...

It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel argues that ¡°technical difficulties¡± and an ¡°internal oversight¡± prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the ¡°error message¡± provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant¡¯s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member¡¯s terms of employment...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...