±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate ±¬ÁÏÍøSU election matters was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that although ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact or law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no statutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.