±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-552), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the findings by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while only final judgments of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeding its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...