Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite acknowledging that under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and no application had been made to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.