Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.