±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in deciding that Ms. Xing¡¯s candidacy was given a full and fair consideration, in finding that the administrative instruction on gender parity (ST/AI/1999/9) did not apply in this case, and in not granting Ms. Xing¡¯s request to amend her application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has not been shown to have erred in requiring credible evidence of a clear and compelling nature of Ms. Xing¡¯s allegations of ulterior motives, which was absent.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

Mr. Hammond¡¯s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond¡¯s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a ¡°conversion¡± or an ¡°abolishment¡± because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in determining that the 11 November 2018 letter provided notification of the final administrative decision subject to appeal, since it contained the key characteristic of producing ¡°¡¯direct legal consequences¡¯ affecting a staff member¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment¡±.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not detect any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT admitted on appeal the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...

Contrary to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

The matter remanded to the Joint Appeals Board of ITLOS to be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process