Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite acknowledging that under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in view of the informal resolution of the dispute.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.