Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

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 considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...

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 considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that resignation results in a break in service, which may, in turn, disqualify a staff member for consideration for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if a staff member took issue with the requirement for a break in service, he or she should have challenged it at the time by requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari never challenged his separation from service from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK or, at any time after his arrival in New York, made any request to human resources to be reinstated at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing arbitrary about the impugned decision of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, as it was based on reports by the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund between July 2011 and February 2013. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that good reason had been established for the CEO to decide on 31 July 2011 as the proper date for the suspension of the two-track system in Argentina, notwithstanding that there were previous statements regarding the reliability of the consumer price index (CPI) data in Argentina. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that such a decision was a proper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee¡¯s reliance on Article 30(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations as a rationale for its finding that a deferred retirement benefit became payable to Ms. Assebe upon her separation from service was flawed on the basis that she did not elect for a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

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...