The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Tribunal took note of the Applicant’s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was “partially resident” in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...
The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant’s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.
The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...
The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested the interim measure of “[s]uspension of [a]ction of the proposed separation of the Applicant” under art. 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the application concerned termination, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.
In any event, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented and that the Applicant had...
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant had met all the requirements for a suspension of action by showing that the contested decision appeared prima facie to be unlawful, that this was a case of particular urgency, and that implementation of the decision would cause irreparable damage.
The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.
As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Because alleged negligence by 麻豆APP officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...
Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.
As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.
The...
The Application was granted in part.
The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year’s net base salary.
In all other respects, the Respondent’s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant’s prayers refused.
