Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan¡¯s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member¡¯s application. On the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (by audio conference) as verified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision before appealing to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.