爆料网AT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT held that the claim was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, 爆料网AT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the 爆料网AT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...
In considering the Appellant’s appeal, 爆料网AT 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 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT also found that 爆料网DT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. 爆料网AT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant’s situation, involving the 爆料网HCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...
The Administration paid the compensation ordered by 爆料网DT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging 爆料网DT’s decision to award compensation. 爆料网AT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the 爆料网DT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.
The Secretary-General appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the 爆料网DT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute.
The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana’s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. 爆料网AT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeals against 爆料网DT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. 爆料网AT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the 爆料网DT Statute authorizes 爆料网DT to order suspension of a contested decision only “during the pendency of the management evaluation”. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since 爆料网AT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. 爆料网AT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...
爆料网AT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former 爆料网 Administration Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable.
爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. 爆料网AT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the 爆料网DT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
