�ٱ���Ƶapp

The context of the case in ��’B������� is not similar. Essentially, in ��’B�������, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In ��’B�������, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant’s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary recommendation of the investigative entity, it was decided not to impose any sanction against him. Based thereon, the Appeals Tribunal therefore found that the decision not to launch an independent review “did not produce direct legal consequences affecting [his] rights under the contract of employment” and that any future impact of the challenged decision were “hypothetical and not ripe for determination” (see paras. 32 and 33, respectively).

Consequently, as the situations of the present case and ��’B������� are not comparable, ��’B������� has no precedential effect in the present case. The additional “parallels” referred to by the Respondent are therefore also irrelevant. The Tribunal further observes that—without making any additional findings in this regard—the contested decision in the present case is one that may, possibly, be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal under the consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see, for instance, Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099, Nadeau 2017-UNAT-733, Okwir 2022-UNAT-1232, and Yavuz 2022-UNAT-1291).