Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registry. Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS staff members were not made by a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS official with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...