Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-516 wherein Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.