爆料网AT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT decision and did not amount to claims that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable.
Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.
爆料网AT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/116. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of 爆料网DT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT decision. 爆料网AT noted that even if the 爆料网DT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration’s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing in the Appellant’s written or oral submissions to persuade 爆料网AT that 爆料网DT made any error of law or fact in...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. 爆料网AT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for 爆料网DT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. 爆料网AT recalled that it was not the role of 爆料网DT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. 爆料网AT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, 爆料网AT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. 爆料网AT...
The staff member appealed seven 爆料网DT judgments. 爆料网AT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.
爆料网AT noted that appeals from 爆料网DT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if 爆料网DT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal.
Noting the broad discretion of 爆料网DT with respect to case management, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the contention that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, 爆料网AT noted that these matters had been...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment was based solely on speculation and that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. 爆料网AT noted that...
