±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that it does...

On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT contradicted ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no final, appealable...

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective for failure to identify errors made by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. However, noting that the Appellant was self-represented, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had properly exercised its discretion in transferring the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in jurisdiction, procedure, law, or in fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision to transfer him to another post after the abolition of his post was exercised arbitrarily or...