Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years¡¯ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/061 on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the Appellant contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...