Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant...