Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357, judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359, judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-358, and judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-360). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 27 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone¡¯s motion to hold decision letters in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had not initiated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Roig¡¯s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for correction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is alternative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Administrative Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and CTBTO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSB decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election matters was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

The Appellant requested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to...