Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/028, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/029 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/076). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is competent to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright¡¯s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...
