Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e avait des effets n¨¦gatifs sur ses conditions d'emploi, en particulier son assurance maladie et ses prestations. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pr¨¦sent¨¦ aucun argument pertinent pour contester les conclusions de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon lesquelles il n'y avait pas de d¨¦cision administrative au sein de la juridiction de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD.

Unat consid¨¦rait l'appel de l'appelant. Unat a not¨¦ que, contrairement ¨¤ l'affirmation de l'appelant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'¨¦tait pas tenu de d¨¦terminer si la fermeture du centre ¨¦tait une cons¨¦quence de la mauvaise gestion ou de tout autre facteur, car l'objectif principal n'¨¦tait pas de se d¨¦barrasser de l'appelant. Unat a constat¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ne manquait pas d'exercer sa juridiction en ne d¨¦terminant pas si la fermeture du centre ¨¦tait le r¨¦sultat d'une mauvaise gestion et d'irr¨¦gularit¨¦s s¨¦rieuses. Unat a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas soumis une preuve suffisamment claire et convaincante que...

Unat a jug¨¦ que la demande de l'appelant avait ¨¦t¨¦ soumise ¨¤ Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTS apr¨¨s l'expiration de la p¨¦riode de r¨¦ponse; La p¨¦riode de r¨¦ponse a commenc¨¦ ¨¤ la date ¨¤ laquelle elle a re?u une lettre de l'unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la direction l'informant que sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir car, en tant que juge, elle n'¨¦tait pas membre du personnel ou ancien membre du personnel du sens des r¨¨gles du personnel. Unat a jug¨¦ que les affirmations de l'appelant selon lesquelles le juge de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur sur une question de fait, en consid¨¦rant la lettre comme la...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait ni contest¨¦ une d¨¦cision qui, selon lui, ne correspondait pas aux stipulations de son contrat de service ni au droit de demander la mise en ?uvre d'une proc¨¦dure d'arbitrage avant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Cependant, Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT avait commis une erreur en concluant que l'appelant avait manifestement abus¨¦ du processus. L'appel a ¨¦t¨¦ partiellement confirm¨¦ et le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT est partiellement annul¨¦ concernant le paiement de 500,00 USD pour abus de proc¨¦dure.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision de Mme Basenko du jugement n ¡ã 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139. Unat a jug¨¦ que la r¨¦f¨¦rence faite par Unat au pr¨¦c¨¦dent dans Gabaldon (jugement n ¡ã 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139) n'a pas pu ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦e comme un fait d¨¦cisif qui ¨¦tait, au moment o¨´ le jugement ¨¦tait rendu, inconnu de Unat. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas en mesure de voir un motif valable de r¨¦vision dans le cadre de l'article 11 de la loi Unat. Unat a jug¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reference made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Johnson. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis and held that the decision to deny the staff member a refund of the US income tax on her salary and emoluments was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the US grants foreign tax credits in respect of income tax paid by one of its nationals or permanent residents to another State to relieve the effects of double taxation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exclusion of such credits as payment would not only contravene the principle of equality of treatment among staff members if staff members from the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to that extent, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-078) and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly...

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 the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...