����AV

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to investigate her complaint under ST/SGB/2008/5 against the Chief, Languages Services (“Chief LS”), and fifteen of her colleagues and, following the investigation against two individuals, the decision to take managerial action against only one of the staff members she had complained about.; Receivability; Since the Applicant failed to request timely management evaluation of the decision not to investigate her complaint against the Chief, LS, and fifteen other staff members,; notified to her on 30 March 2017, these claims in her application were not receivable, ratione materiae, pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; Scope of judicial review; The Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration took the complaint seriously, and properly followed the procedure outlined in ST/SGB/2008/5.; The Tribunal noted that the Applicant identified 18 witnesses to be interviewed and that the investigation Panel interviewed only those witnesses whom it found relevant, namely those who had been referred to by both the Applicant and the alleged harassers during their interviews. The Tribunal observed that an Investigation Panel has a wide discretion in determining which witnesses it finds relevant, and failure to interview one or some witnesses will result in a procedural violation only in limited circumstances (Belkhabbaz UNDT-2018-016). In this case, the Applicant failed to indicate both in her request for management evaluation and in her application to the Tribunal the names of specific witnesses and how failure to interview them had an impact on the outcome of the investigation. Further, while the Applicant stated that the interview conclusions were “biased”, she did not provide further particulars to support that contention. Further she did not substantiate her claim that the Panel “brushed” aside emails presented as evidence, nor did she identify the impact that it had on the outcome of the investigation.; In the absence of further particulars provided by the Applicant as to the bias and failure to take into account relevant evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that in the exercise of its discretion, the Investigation Panel identified relevant witnesses by adopting appropriate and relevant criteria and properly considered the evidence before it. The; Tribunal was further satisfied that the Director-General diligently reviewed the Panel’s report when he decided to close the matter with respect to one subject and to take managerial action concerning another subject. In the circumstances the Tribunal found that the procedure of ST/SGB/2008/5 was complied with and that the decision communicated to the Applicant on 27 November 2017 was lawful.