Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a legitimate expectation of a one-year extension was unequivocally created by virtue of the decision taken at the Core Management Group meeting. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that Mr Munir had a legitimate expectation and the decision of the Resident Representative not to seek a one-year renewal of his contract was an unlawful exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate that the compensation was unreasonable because there was a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT when it determined these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

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 there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.