Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

A a holder of an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...

Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation. Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.