±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

±¬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 the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the moving party. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/100, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that a ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-516 wherein ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the only...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.