Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant¡¯s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reversible error on part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a ¡°Message of the Day¡± was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was unable to find any such evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...