±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

±¬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 held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute by not asserting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the minutes upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute nor the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...