Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the written witness statement sought to be submitted constituted new and additional evidence on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was apparent that the staff member had known of the evidence at the Dispute Tribunal but, as he noted in his motion and appeal brief, had relied on other grounds which he believed were sufficient to substantiate his claims without risking exposing the witness. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this rendered his request to submit additional evidence on appeal inadmissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for leave to submit a confidential witness statement.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar in her letter. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted with concern that the JAB had been dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration; it was also alarming that the Administration had dismantled the JAB with no successor in place, denying the staff members access to justice in the interim. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no judgments or decisions from the JAB against which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT could evaluate the requested relief. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motions had become moot as the JAB had since been reconstituted and a panel to consider the requests for suspension...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reject it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its calculation of the reduction of the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit, the Pension Fund had determined the rate of the overall cost-of-living adjustment due to benefits in accordance with the movement in the US consumer price index since the date of the last adjustment to be 6.4 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Fund had then prorated the overall adjustment rate in proportion to the length of time the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit had been in payment and had determined that the inflationary adjustment due to him was 7/12 of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.