Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a legitimate expectation of a one-year extension was unequivocally created by virtue of the decision taken at the Core Management Group meeting. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that Mr Munir had a legitimate expectation and the decision of the Resident Representative not to seek a one-year renewal of his contract was an unlawful exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate that the compensation was unreasonable because there was a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter under investigation was closed and the Appellant had not presented any cogent argument to show that there were exceptional circumstances that might otherwise have entitled him to the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to receive a detailed copy of the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
