Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one¡¯s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the findings of fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli¡¯s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member¡¯s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

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 held, noting that the Appellant relied on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052) in her request for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute could not be disregarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT approved judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in Rosca. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.