±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the inherent power to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the inherent power to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright¡¯s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the Appellant challenged an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment and that the application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Smith¡¯s request for management evaluation and the MEU¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish the posts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while in other aspects, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...