Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all arguments made on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction...