Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could find no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to protect him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ,for various reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...