罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-305, Kasmani

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT recalled that 罌厭弝ⅰAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years＊ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-306, Ming Wu

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that therefore 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before 罌厭弝ⅰAT for consideration. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-297, Likuyani

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that neither Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application before 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not receivable because 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, while it confirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s conclusion, it found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-299, Gehr

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly concluded that applications to 罌厭弝ⅰDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-293, Gehr

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly concluded that applications to the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no merit in the Appellant＊s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-282, Lauritzen

28 Mar 2013

On the alleged procedural error of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was well within the competence of 罌厭弝ⅰDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed this ground of appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held, affirming the finding of 罌厭弝ⅰDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that 罌厭弝ⅰDT failed to consider that 罌厭弝ⅰHCR...

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-433-Corr.1, Hersh

27 Jun 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-488, Chocobar

17 Oct 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the Secretary-General＊s appeal of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 233, which contended that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that Article 36 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order, as there was no case before 罌厭弝ⅰDT to which Article 36 could apply. 罌厭弝ⅰAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow 罌厭弝ⅰDT to...

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-455, Guzman

27 Jun 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed Ms Guzman＊s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General＊s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by 罌厭弝ⅰAT. On the merits, 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman＊s amended Motion of...

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-433/Corr.1, Hersh

27 Jun 2014