±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all arguments made on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬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.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the evidence showed that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.