Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Art. 8.1(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-091) from the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.