±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT inferred that the Appellant claimed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the legal conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ,for various reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the text of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...