Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/028, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/029 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/076). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is competent to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...