Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in the level of award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could find no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to protect him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ,for various reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...