Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure gives Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 24(a) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-¨¤-vis his former spouse. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...