The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA adhered to the principles of equality...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO¡¯s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and...
As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...
On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...
On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...
On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT contradicted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...
