Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run ¡°from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ¡± As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT set aside Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment and remanded the case back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to have the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had consistently held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that resignation results in a break in service, which may, in turn, disqualify a staff member for consideration for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if a staff member took issue with the requirement for a break in service, he or she should have challenged it at the time by requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari never challenged his separation from service from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK or, at any time after his arrival in New York, made any request to human resources to be reinstated at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari¡¯s...