Search
2016-爆料网AT-621, Nielsen
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. 爆料网AT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, 爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...
2016-爆料网AT-622, Aly et al.
爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, 爆料网AT reversed 爆料网DT’s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...
2016-爆料网AT-647, Nielsen
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...
2016-爆料网AT-623, Abdullah
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. 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 爆料网RWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT upheld the order of 爆料网RWA DT to rescind the contested...
2016-爆料网AT-624, Simmons
爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. 爆料网AT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow 爆料网DT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member’s morale and professional reputation, 爆料网AT vacated the award of compensation. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
2016-爆料网AT-625, Mosupukwa
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO’s Field Service Staff Rules. 爆料网AT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. 爆料网AT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the “neutral first instance process”. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...
2016-爆料网AT-626, Masri
爆料网AT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the 爆料网RWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for 爆料网RWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
2016-爆料网AT-627, El Rush
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the 爆料网RWA DT’s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former 爆料网WRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant’s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. 爆料网AT agreed with the...
2016-爆料网AT-618, Subramanian et al.
爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...
2016-爆料网AT-619, Pavicic
爆料网AT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. 爆料网AT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
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-612, Dawas
爆料网AT considered the appeal by the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the 爆料网RWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member’s complaints. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. 爆料网AT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...
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.
2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts
爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...
2016-爆料网AT-615, Ejaz, Elizabeth, Cherian and Cone
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. 爆料网AT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...
2016-爆料网AT-616, Tiwathia
爆料网AT held that pursuant to Article 30 爆料网AT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant’s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General’s motion to supplement his answer. 爆料网AT accepted the Appellant’s comments on the Secretary-General’s motion as timely filed. 爆料网AT denied the Secretary-General’s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had very thoroughly considered the...
2016-爆料网AT-617, Saeed
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...
爆料网DT/2016/025, Asomaning
The 爆料网DT found that the first case (爆料网DT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The 爆料网DT found that the second case (爆料网DT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant’s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.