±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no basis for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the findings by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on the merits.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

On an appeal by the Secretary-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the applications were receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute limits the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction to hearing appeals against administrative decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT defined an administrative decision as a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with the...