Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal rejected the application finding that the Secretary-General made the final selection decision, lawfully taking into account the unchallenged considerations of geographical diversity and gender. In regard to the evaluation of the shortlisted candidates, the Applicant cannot allege to have been prejudiced by the choice of the other shortlisted or recommended candidates. The Applicant was among the recommended candidates. In any event, the Applicant does not demonstrate that the selected female candidate had less credentials than the other female candidates. The Applicant has not...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-043 on the issue of to which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assignment of venue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated the principle that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure¡¯s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration¡¯s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...