Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-936 by Mr Diallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...

nglÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor¡¯s benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund¡¯s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...