±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to be non-receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/101. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT acknowledged that while the Appellant was eligible for a permanent appointment, the Administration was entitled to have regard to the fact that she was recruited because she was a national of Romania for the specific post in ±¬ÁÏÍøIC Bucharest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that both the Department of Public Information and the Officer-in-Charge of Human Resources Services previously anticipated that ±¬ÁÏÍøIC Bucharest, among others, was scheduled to close in the very near future, due to the uncertainty of the funding by the host country, on which the continuation of the Appellant¡¯s post depended. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied both Applications.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...