±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the recommendations did not constitute administrative decisions subject to appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that his application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in applying Former ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-078) and held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any error of law or fact in...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/101. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...
