É«¿âTV

Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the UNICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant’s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant’s request for protection, was not subject to judicial review. The Tribunal observes, however, that the Applicant could and did seek review of the Ethics Office’s assessment by the Chairperson of the Ethics Panel of the United Nations.; With respect to the Applicant’s contestation of the finding by the management evaluation that her complaint of 8 April 2017 raised workplace issues rather than rights’ violations and breaches of UNICEF rules, the Tribunal stresses that it could not identify any administrative decision subject to judicial review. In the absence of an administrative decision contested by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that this part of the application was equally not receivable ratione materiae.; In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the application was partly moot, and partly not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it without further analysis of the grounds of appeal. In light of this, the Applicant’s motions for leave to file additional submissions were also rejected.; However, to protect the Applicant’s health and reputation, the Tribunal found it appropriate to redact the Applicant’s name in the present judgment.