Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant¡¯s rights. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s Judgment dismissing the Appellant¡¯s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that Ms. Wenz¡¯ application was irreceivable ratione materiae and that therefore, it did not have to address the question of whether the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s participation in mediation efforts did not automatically extend the time limit for filing a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Secretary-General was not estopped from raising the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 2 February 2009 to file an appeal before the Joint Appeals Board. However, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was dated 27 February 2009 and was not received by the Joint Appeals Board until 3 March 2009. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not present any exceptional circumstance that prevented him from filing an appeal within the time limits prescribed in the Staff Rules then in effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the request was therefore irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.