±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT rightly rejected the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official¡¯s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no final, appealable...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no rule requiring...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was...