Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/113 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-972) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-973). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/111 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-964) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-969). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

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 a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and no application had been made to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...