Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that this error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not adversely affect...
