Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

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 rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties¡¯ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant¡¯s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal¡¯s order¡ªthe use of the word ¡°grounds¡± in a subheading instead of ¡°issues¡± is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 ¨C never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

The first management evaluation decision dealt with the issue of the promise made to the Applicant and granted him compensation of three months salary in lieu of further performance of his contract of employment. That decision itself as mentioned earlier does not prevent the Applicant from filing an appeal in respect of the same subject matter that is the non renewal of his contract. Whereas Management has considered the express promise to the Applicant and decided that monetary compensation was sufficient remedy, the Tribunal recalls that it found the ¡°circumstances surrounding the non...