±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was well within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

The Appellant challenged ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

On the termination decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed...