Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant¡¯s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

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 held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official¡¯s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation¡¯s...

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...

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...

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...