±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/104 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the approach of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not merit the remedy...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment concerning her entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rules...

Noting the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to case management, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that these matters had been...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any error of law or fact in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment was based solely on speculation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was one...