Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Appellant requested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to be non-receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both Applications.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that while the Appellant was eligible for a permanent appointment, the Administration was entitled to have regard to the fact that she was recruited because she was a national of Romania for the specific post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIC Bucharest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that both the Department of Public Information and the Officer-in-Charge of Human Resources Services previously anticipated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIC Bucharest, among others, was scheduled to close in the very near future, due to the uncertainty of the funding by the host country, on which the continuation of the Appellant¡¯s post depended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that...

The Secretary-General appealed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...