Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was erroneous. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...