Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Appellant contested the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that it does...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...