±¬ÁÏÍø

In Judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050/Corr.1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on questions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB¡¯s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it decided to give ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...