Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to be heard afresh.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated the principle that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke¡¯s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when it determines that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified that this did not...