Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the minutes upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright¡¯s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish the posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while in other aspects, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...