±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consider the appeal receivable and find that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/080, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to order his reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

On the Appellant¡¯s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...