Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...