Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...
The Appellant sought reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...
On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...
