Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

The Appellant challenged Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed...