±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the EOD date as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as irreceivable. The Applicant had requested the Tribunal to order a rescission of the decision to permanently withdraw his MINUSCA¡¯s driver¡¯s permit. The Tribunal noted that this request had been satisfied by the Administration. The relief having been fully granted, there was no longer a justiciable matter before the Tribunal, thus rendering the application moot.