±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within ±¬ÁÏÍøDP before terminating her permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.