Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its findings that the Appellant¡¯s claim of continued harassment was clearly based on his interpretation of the settlement agreement as permitting him to apply for a job in ESCWA and that the only act of alleged continued harassment and discrimination that he relies on is not being considered for the post of Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence, or pleadings, of any continued harassment or discrimination not associated with the implementation or interpretation of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need for it to rule on whether the Appellant was correct in his argument that the terms of the settlement agreement entitled him to apply for future positions in ESCWA because, under the applicable law, he was simply out of time to make such a challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable as it was filed after the agreement had already been fully implemented and therefore, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was not subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not correct to base its finding of non-receivability on Article 7(4) of its RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that his personnel file contained adverse material which made it impossible for him to be rehired contradicted the settlement agreement, was not receivable, and lacked merit. Assuming arguendo that the Appellant¡¯s claim was receivable, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Administration had provided any negative information about the Appellant contrary to the terms of the agreement, nor that it had even be contacted by prospective employers. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant claimed harassment, discrimination, that he was unfairly excluded from competing for a post, and that the Official Status File contained adverse materials that imperilled his efforts to secure future employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application in its entirety, holding the application not receivable as it had been filed out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by arguing that he was excluded from being considered for the post despite the settlement agreement allowing him to do so, the Applicant was essentially asking Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to order the implementation of the settlement agreement pursuant to Article 7(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that, under Article 7(4), an application seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement must be filed within 30 days of its signing and therefore the application was not receivable. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had tendered the settlement agreement into evidence in violation of the rule on confidentiality contained in Article 15(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure.
Legal Principle(s)
A request to redact the name of a party from a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment can only be granted where it is necessary to protect the information of a confidential and sensitive nature. A settlement agreement is not subject to judicial review after it has been fully implemented.