±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.