Subject matter (ratione materiae) | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-771, Al-Mussader

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant＊s application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT, that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant＊s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-739, Fayek

31 Mar 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT refused the Appellant＊s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, contrary to the Appellant＊s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-743, Jean

31 Mar 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT committed an error of law. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the minutes upon which 罌厭弝ⅰDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-767, Wright

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright＊s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration＊s decision to terminate him. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright＊s application receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that in light of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s error in receiving the application, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-766, Alsado

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration＊s decision to terminate him. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado＊s application receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that in light of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s error in receiving the application, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-763, Crotty

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration＊s decision to terminate him. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty＊s application receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that in light of 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s error in receiving the application, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-761, Michaud

14 Jul 2017

As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the Appellant＊s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to 罌厭弝ⅰDP. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-756, Nkashama et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 罌厭弝ⅰAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-753, Kiluwe et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-752, Baguma et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and 罌厭弝ⅰAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.