Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute.