Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The Application was granted in part.

The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year¡¯s net base salary.

In all other respects, the Respondent¡¯s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant¡¯s prayers refused.

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator¡¯s finding of ¡°prior conduct¡± were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant¡¯s persistency...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...