±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants¡¯ argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the consideration of transferable skills as a criterion for future permanent appointment for staff members serving in a downsizing entity is a relevant factor and a legitimate consideration because the finite mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) meant that such staff members had no realistic career prospects in that entity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a rational basis for the denial of permanent appointments for the language staff (professional and general service) given the winding down of ICTY and the diminishing need for Bosnian, Croatian...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT¡¯s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by ¡°officials¡±, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...

The reservations which each of the Applicants formulated upon accepting the lump sum are not binding on the Administration since, at the time the agreement was signed, the Administration and the staff member were not in a contractual situation in which each could negotiate rights. Instead, they were in a situation governed by rules in which the Administration could only apply the rules and the staff member could only accept or reject the lump-sum payment proposed. The applicants contend that only by accepting the lump-sum payment with reservations could they challenge the basis on which the...

The respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that the applicant¡¯s post had been created, and the applicant recruited, specifically for the purpose of prosecuting the above-mentioned top Serbian leader. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to abolish the applicant¡¯s post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment had been taken in view of the necessities of service and constituted a proper exercise of the respondent¡¯s discretionary authority. Since it was established that the necessities of service justified the termination of the applicant¡¯s appointment, it was not...

Method of interpretation: The interpretation of a statutory document proceeds first by establishing the plain meaning of the words in the context of the document as a whole. Only if the wording is ambiguous should the Tribunal have recourse to other documents or external sources to aid in the interpretation.Respondent¡¯s discretion in providing benefits: As a matter of principle, the Administration has no discretion in the granting of allowances but is bound to strictly apply the applicable rules.Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant¡¯s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...