Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

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...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2013/035 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the definition of...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.