±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could find no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to protect him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT inferred that the Appellant claimed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the legal conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ,for various reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the text of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...