Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-531, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT set out the correct legal framework, but thereafter erroneously reviewed the evidence and interfered with the administrative discretion, since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had established the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in its evaluation of the evidence and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had established the existence of the facts warranting disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure and the subsequent decision were lawful and there was no basis to rescind the termination or to award any...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding his claims, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko¡¯s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko¡¯s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko¡¯s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the definition of...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...