±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko¡¯s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for ±¬ÁÏÍø purposes was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko¡¯s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko¡¯s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a ±¬ÁÏÍø staff member because he worked with ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS for over three years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant¡¯s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-757) as it did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in the Appellant¡¯s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

On the termination decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS Administration had approved such leave. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that that the Appellant¡¯s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...