Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Applicant¡¯s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis.

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...