±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute which provided...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s challenge which related to the comments of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF in the administration of its staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...