As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and to separate her from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSB decision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Administrative Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and CTBTO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...
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...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-134) on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...
The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...
