Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan¡¯s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member¡¯s application. On the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant¡¯s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.