Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment asking that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

Ms. Coleman appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not issued a judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were unaware of various Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reasoned prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgments do not...