Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reversible error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

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 appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...