±¬ÁÏÍø

Execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT judgments: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

Outcome: The Applicant¡¯s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant¡¯s file and pay the Applicant six months¡¯ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that, in the circumstances of the Applicant having informed ±¬ÁÏÍøDTthat he will not file an application because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the proceedings have been abandoned. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cloased the case for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that General Assembly resolution 63/253, by which the Assembly adopted the statutes of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, imposed limitations on their jurisdiction. Interns presently do not have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed it without consideration of its merits.