Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that failing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable because the contested decision is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 11.2(b) and accordingly the time limits applicable under art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute should have been complied with. It clearly follows from staff rule 11.2(b) that the exemption from the requirement to request the management evaluation of a disciplinary measure only applies to disciplinary measures imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process.

The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years¡¯ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization¡¯s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

Abuse of Process: Proceedings before the Tribunal are not the proper forum to advocate legal reform. Where the Tribunal determines that any applications before it are frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the Court¡¯s process, it will not hesitate to visit sanctions upon the offending party as provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Vexatious Proceedings: An action may be held to be vexatious if it is obviously unsustainable, or frivolous, improper or instituted without sufficient ground to serve solely as an annoyance to the Respondent.

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.