Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was obliged to consider.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant¡¯s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...