Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that it does...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on her application for a suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.