±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/062. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the settlement...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the ±¬ÁÏÍø, through ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the ±¬ÁÏÍø, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...