Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that knowledge of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that it does...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim¡¯s credibility. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant¡¯s credibility, in particular...

As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.