Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

To the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the withdrawal request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

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 considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.