Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...