¹ú²úAV

Receivability: In light of the Respondent’s own arguments in this case, it should have been clear that the decision taken clearly falls within the type of decisions contemplated by art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute. This Tribunal has moved toward a less rigid and more purposive interpretation of what constitutes an administrative decision and parties should not fail to take into account the developing case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal. Incomplete applications: There may be cases where an application for sabbatical leave, while formally containing the documents and information required, is substantively incomplete, that is, where it does not contain information of a sufficient or reasonable quality for a decision to be made on the basis of what is submitted. Discretion of Programme Officer-in-Charge: There was no evidence led of the delegation of authority to the Programme Officer-in-Charge to determine whether applications are either late or incomplete and the instruments do not state so; therefore it must be for the Committee to undertake at least a preliminary consideration and make the assessment of which applications comply and which will be considered on their merits. Loss: Where no consideration or informed evaluation of an application for sabbatical leave would be possible, an applicant cannot be said to have suffered any loss from a failure to forward his application to the Committee. Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Programme Officer-in-Charge did not have authority to determine the Applicant’s application incomplete, but that he could not be said to have suffered any loss attributable to the Respondent.