±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, agreeing with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel¡¯s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reprimand in the offender¡¯s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe¡¯s reputation and career. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with specific consideration of the following: ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...