The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge in her decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
