±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

±¬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 considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

±¬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 the Secretary-General's appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that Article 24(a) ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-¨¤-vis his former spouse. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...