Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as interpreted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in Costa and affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and raised it for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run ¡°from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ¡± As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT set aside Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment and remanded the case back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to have the...