Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reversible error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...