Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari¡¯s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant¡¯s...

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

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 held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...