Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...