Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law when it found Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not accord any deference to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...