Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that given...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...