±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede¡¯s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede¡¯s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede¡¯s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not able to detect any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got¡¯s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.