Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

The Appellant filed a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issued Order No. 188 (2014) noting the withdrawal and ordering the Registrar to close the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute which provided...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ¡°did not refer to any new fact or information¡± and was ¡°a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...