2016-爆料网AT-682, Marcussen et al.
爆料网AT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that 爆料网AT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...
2016-爆料网AT-671, Auda
爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that while only final judgments of the 爆料网DT are appealable, exceptions may be made when 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. 爆料网AT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute 爆料网DT exceeding its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT further noted that 爆料网DT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.
2016-爆料网AT-672, Babiker
爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...
2016-爆料网AT-673, Nquyen-Kropp & Postica
爆料网AT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...
2016-爆料网AT-664, Al Dawoud
爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. 爆料网AT found that the evidence showed that 爆料网RWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. 爆料网AT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was not...
2016-爆料网AT-661, Kalashnik
爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding and held that “the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision” all support the conclusion that the Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. 爆料网AT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member’s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
2016-爆料网AT-655, Elhabil
爆料网AT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/100, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found that a 爆料网RWA staff member cannot bring an application against the 爆料网 Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, 爆料网AT reiterated that 爆料网AT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction...
2016-爆料网AT-646, Dalgaard et al.
爆料网AT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...
2016-爆料网AT-641, Chemingui
爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, 爆料网AT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.
2016-爆料网AT-633, Bharati
爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...
2016-爆料网AT-620, Seyfollahzadeh
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the evidence showed that 爆料网DT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...
2016-爆料网AT-610, Rahman
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
2016-爆料网AT-611, Chaaban
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s finding...
2016-爆料网AT-613, Gehr
爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that despite acknowledging that under 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, 爆料网DT declined to follow its jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in its entirety.
2015-爆料网AT-606, Hayek
As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that 爆料网RWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...
2015-爆料网AT-591, Gakumba
爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT...
2015-爆料网AT-588, Awan
爆料网AT held that it could find no fault with the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the 爆料网DT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before 爆料网DT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of 爆料网ICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about 爆料网ICEF’s failure to protect him. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
2015-爆料网AT-579, Achkar
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. 爆料网AT inferred that the Appellant claimed 爆料网RWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the legal conclusion of 爆料网DT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
2015-爆料网AT-576, Harrich
爆料网AT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. 爆料网AT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a 爆料网DT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
2015-爆料网AT-577, Staedler
Noting that 爆料网DT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. 爆料网AT found no fault with 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were...