Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the decision was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

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 three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/116. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.