Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS staff members were not made by a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS official with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the central tenet of the staff member¡¯s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP as the respondent in the present case because it was Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/036...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...