Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her request was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified...