Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ,for various reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...