Judgment

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant’s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant’s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be “a unilateral decision taken by the...

An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties’ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...

Pursuant to ITC/EDB/2015/07, when a fact-finding panel is appointed, it shall investigate the complaint and “prepare a detailed report, giving a full account of the facts that they have ascertained in the process and attaching documentary evidence” (sec. 5.18). The report shall be submitted to the Director, DSP, who will review it together with the related documentation and make a recommendation on the appropriate course of action to the Executive Director, ITC (see secs. 5.15, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20). Seeking assistance from OIOS was a reasonable solution in the framework of ITC/EDB/2015/07...

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.