Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to consider the issue...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/129 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/130. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since it had rescinded the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...