Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Toure is binding precedent on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as it applied to the Appellant¡¯s case and found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.
The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Secretary-General...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...
The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604 (Ocokoru). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in judgment 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...
As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...
