Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

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 three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that parties before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remained legally valid until such time as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order was vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.