±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reversible error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-552), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the evidence showed that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...