Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in affirming the JAB¡¯s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...
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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that ¡°the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID without consulting the releasing agency¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had...
