Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ,for various reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.