爆料网AT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. 爆料网AT rescinded the 爆料网DT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.
爆料网AT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...
The Secretary-General claimed that 爆料网DT had no power to award interest. 爆料网AT found that both 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that 爆料网DT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT concurred with 爆料网DT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to 爆料网DT and raised it for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the 爆料网AT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. 爆料网AT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. 爆料网AT held that the requirement for 爆料网 Office at Nairobi (爆料网ON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation’s staff medical insurance plan. 爆料网AT held that this requirement was of general...
爆料网AT, applying Bertucci (2010-爆料网AT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against 爆料网DT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of 爆料网DT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. 爆料网AT further held that the appeal against 爆料网DT’s order for production of the OIOS...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with 爆料网MIK. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how 爆料网DT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to explain how 爆料网DT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT recalled that the 爆料网DT Statute precluded 爆料网DT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT Judgment.
爆料网AT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. 爆料网AT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...
