爆料网

Subject matter (ratione materiae)

  • Management Evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Temporel (ratione temporis)
    • Showing 71 - 80 of 513
    2022-爆料网AT-1297, Eman Abed & Osama Abed

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the 爆料网RWA staff members. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters’ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency’s regulatory framework. The 爆料网AT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellants that there is no 爆料网RWA...

    2022-爆料网AT-1272, Sahar Darweesh Hanjoury

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury’s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione materiae.

    The...

    2022-爆料网AT-1292, Richard Loto

    The 爆料网AT first reviewed the Secretary-General’s claim that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that Mr. Loto’s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The 爆料网AT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

    爆料网DT/2023/083, JSV and J-PSV

    The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

    2022-爆料网AT-1278, Langa Dorji

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

    The 爆料网AT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the 爆料网DT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2021...

    2022-爆料网AT-1289, Lolo Mkhabela

    Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

    As regards receivability ratione temporis, the 爆料网AT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela’s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

    爆料网DT/2023/031, Ozturk

    The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- 爆料网AT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

    While the Applicant sought to identify the 爆料网MIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

    The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

    爆料网DT/2023/025, ASLAM

    The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

    The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.