±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant¡¯s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as allegations of improper motive, bias, or prejudice as reasons for the unlawfulness of the non-renewal were not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for its consideration, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT should not consider them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the exceptional circumstances that were required to allow additional pleadings to be considered, were not present. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in situations of a staff member being declared persona non grata by a host country, it was the duty of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to implement the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that this error by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not adversely affect...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration¡¯s practice of removing the candidates¡¯ names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives...

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...