Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to...