Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
MOn the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the application was receivable in its entirety, as each of the three decisions taken on ALWOP were distinct and the Appellant failed to seek management evaluation of the first and second decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the application was only receivable ratione materiae in respect of the third and last decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension of the Appellant¡¯s ALWOP was a material error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that 12 months ALWOP was...
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the IMO Secretary-General¡¯s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that this error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not adversely affect...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...
