Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

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 held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Contrary to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found because...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...