Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its judgment, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT differed in its reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re...