Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/062. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-078) and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.

As the Applicant withdrew claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims in finality, including on the merits with no right of reinstatement, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.