Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the approach of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not merit the remedy...

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment was based solely on speculation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.