Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a condition precedent to find that the application was filed in a timely manner and was therefore receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in reaching its conclusion regarding the last day for the implementation of the settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and dismissed the issues raised pertaining to the settlement agreement on grounds of receivability as it had been time-barred. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2016/023 and the alleged failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding prohibited conduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s consideration satisfied the requirement of including stated reasons and that there was no error justifying a possible remand for additional considerations of the matter. On receivability issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application regarding the Ethic¡¯s Office determination was time-barred, but on consideration of the other two contested decisions (Special Representative of Secretary-General and Under-Secretary-General, Department of Field Support) in the application, the application was receivable ratione materiae. Noting that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims related to alleged facts which occurred after the relevant administrative decisions had been issued and that it would be an exaggerated interpretation to consider the issues the Appellant had with his manager meant he would be the subject of prohibited conduct by that manager, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law, fact or procedure in reaching its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal of the Secretary-General and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal of the Appellant.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested (i) the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and (ii) the implementation of a settlement agreement in a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application and he also submitted a second Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application alleging discrimination and mistreatment by his former first reporting officer (FRO). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his claims against his former FRO but found that the Administration had acted in bad faith and in violation of the spirit of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the non-renewal decision and awarded compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
A party is not entitled to appeal the same judgment twice. In situations where a settlement agreement is silent about the date of implementation, the deadline for filing an application is interpreted as 90 days after the 30th day from the date of the signing of the agreement, which is in keeping with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute¡¯s provisions on mediation agreements.