Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 24(a) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-¨¤-vis his former spouse. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...
