爆料网

Temporal (ratione temporis)

  • Management Evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Temporel (ratione temporis)
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 306
    2026-爆料网AT-1622, Gwendolyn Linnea Roeske

    The 爆料网AT held that the issues on appeal were whether the 爆料网DT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the 爆料网DT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly identified...

    2026-爆料网AT-1630, Saleh Hassane

    The 爆料网AT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest 爆料网HCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

    Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

    2026-爆料网AT-1628, Elizabeth George

    The 爆料网AT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the 爆料网AT held that her request was...

    2025-爆料网AT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member’s application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione temporis. The 爆料网AT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the 爆料网AT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

    The...

    2025-爆料网AT-1590, ABE

    The 爆料网AT disagreed with the 爆料网DT’s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior 爆料网DT case concerning ABE. The 爆料网AT considered it clear that the issues before the 爆料网DT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the 爆料网DT in the case on appeal. The 爆料网AT thus agreed with the conclusion of the 爆料网DT that ABE’s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

    The...

    2025-爆料网AT-1598, Ishtiaq Aslam

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly determined that the former staff member’s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on 爆料网AMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The 爆料网AT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the 爆料网DT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The 爆料网AT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

    2025-爆料网AT-1607, John Zumbu Massamba

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the 爆料网DT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment in that same language.As he received the 爆料网DT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the 爆料网AT held that it was filed timely.

    Nevertheless, the 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione temporis.The 爆料网AT observed that the former staff member...

    2025-爆料网AT-1609, Anne Christin Raschdorf

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The 爆料网AT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The 爆料网AT further held that...

    2025-爆料网AT-1593, Sheldon Heron Carter



    The 爆料网AT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member’s performance rating “C – Partially meets expectations” constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of “Partially meets expectations” justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The 爆料网AT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

    The 爆料网AT also concluded that the...

    2025-爆料网AT-1583, Martin Akerman

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The 爆料网AT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the 爆料网DT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

    The 爆料网AT further found that the 爆料网DT did not err in determining that the...