爆料网AT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that it was open to 爆料网DT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. 爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...
爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by 爆料网AT in Costa. 爆料网AT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute, as interpreted by 爆料网DT in Costa and affirmed by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General’s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment on merits only became final when 爆料网DT issued the judgment on compensation. 爆料网AT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...
爆料网AT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. 爆料网AT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. 爆料网AT held that any alleged error by 爆料网DT in considering the merits was moot. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...
爆料网AT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. 爆料网AT rescinded the 爆料网DT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.
The Secretary-General claimed that 爆料网DT had no power to award interest. 爆料网AT found that both 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...
爆料网AT, applying Bertucci (2010-爆料网AT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against 爆料网DT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of 爆料网DT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. 爆料网AT further held that the appeal against 爆料网DT’s order for production of the OIOS...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to explain how 爆料网DT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT recalled that the 爆料网DT Statute precluded 爆料网DT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT Judgment.
