Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the written test had taken...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA official service file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in assessing the damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...