±¬ÁÏÍø

Art. 8.1(i) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-091) from the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

On the delay before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the delay was unfort±¬ÁÏÍøATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.