±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal considered that since the decision of 29 April 2015 was superseded by subsequent renewals, the application was moot, hence irreceivable. Receivability: An application against a non-renewal of appointment becomes moot when the appointment is extended prior to or pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, since the contested decision is deprived of its effects. As a consequence, the application is irreceivable.

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that with respect to one of them, Mr. Y., no complaint was ever received by OAIS, and that, hence, the application before the Tribunal was not receivable on that matter as no contestable administrative decision was ever taken with respect to Mr. Y. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s second colleague, Mrs. X., the Tribunal found that an email the Applicant had sent to an ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Human Resources Associate in August 2013 did not meet the formal requirements of a complaint, as it was not addressed to OAIS pursuant to ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The Tribunal found that the Administration, which acknowledged its mistake, was entitled and bound to recover the money that had been paid to the Applicant in excess of his entitlements as a result, albeit limited to the period of two years provided for in sec. 3.1 of ST/AI/2009/1. The application was dismissed.

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 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 decision not to convoke the Applicant to the YPP in Public Information was not a separate administrative decision, since he had never applied to take that exam. The decision not to convoke him to the YPP in Administration was taken by the Central Examinations Board (¡°CEB¡±), upon appeal, on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Tribunal found that that decision was null and void, since the CEB, which held its meeting by email exchanges, did not have the required quorum and the decision was made after the date of the exam...

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that her first complaint was filed almost nine months after her separation, whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority requires that such complaints be filed within 6 months from the date of the last incident. Additionally, the Tribunal found that as per said Policy, the Applicant had no legal standing to file formal complaints at the time she did so in view that she had been previously separated from service. As a result, the application was rejected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

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.

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, considering that the responsibility to pursue a case remains with the applicant and that, even when he learnt that no (timely) management evaluation had been requested in his case, he took four additional months to submit such request.

After completing his application, at the Tribunal¡¯s request, the Applicant did not respond to 2 orders and 2 notifications from the Tribunal requesting him to submit his comments, if any, on the issue of receivability of the application raised by the Respondent in his reply. Given this, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was no longer interested in the outcome of legal proceedings he instituted and that the case should be closed for abandonment of proceedings.

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

ince the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general order...

The Tribunal found that although the requirements under the Policy and Procedures on Assignments and Promotions (¡°PPAP¡±) with respect to the level of detail/content of the minutes of the deliberations of the Senior Assignments Committee were only minimally met, this did not invalidate the selection process. The evaluation of both the Applicant and the successful candidate was made against the criteria as contained in the job description, based on the candidates¡¯ respective fact sheets, and not on any wrong assumptions or errors. The Tribunal found that the Applicant received full and fair...