Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

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.

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-154. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election matters was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...