±¬ÁÏÍø

On the termination decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General raised the argument, inter alia, that Ms Lamb¡¯s retroactive appointment was disrupted when she resigned and separated and, therefore, she had no contractual relationship with the Organisation obliging it to place her preferentially in vacant posts as someone holding a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded correctly that (1) Ms Lamb¡¯s employment ended in mid-2013 by her own initiative and (2) there was nothing in the documentation relating to Ms Lamb¡¯s resignation to support her assertion that it was...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...