±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

±¬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 held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with specific consideration of the following: ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

The Appellant sought reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.