Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant...