Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

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¡¯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 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 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 management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

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...