Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The Applicant was under the obligation to act with a minimum level of probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness as required by the established facts (staff regulation 1.2(b)). Also, if it is found that an actual or possible conflict of interest arose out of these facts, the Applicant was obliged to disclose this conflict to his head of office in order to allow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵVMC to mitigate its impact and resolve it in accordance with its own best interests (staff regulation 1.2(m)). Finally, if the Applicant¡¯s involvement in a matter could result in an actual or potential conflict of...

Considering the circumstances, the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind the contested decision (in comparison, see the Appeals Tribunal in Lucchini 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1121 and Rolli 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1346).

It is standard practice and courtesy in the Organization that, albeit fixed-term appointments, per definition, do not carry any expectancy of renewal under staff rule 4.13(c), a staff member whose fixed-term appointment is not to be renewed is to receive a pre-notification concerning the non-extension, at least 30 days before its expiry. The Respondent has not argued or submitted any documentation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...