Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the Appellant contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...