The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT no longer existed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/080, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to order his reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision and did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal by a full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The majority of the judges upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...
