Suspension of action

Showing 21 - 28 of 28

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-410, Igbinedion

2 Apr 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established 罌厭弝ⅰAT jurisprudence. However, 罌厭弝ⅰAT also held that parties before 罌厭弝ⅰDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by 罌厭弝ⅰDT remained legally valid until such time as 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated it. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General＊s refusal to comply with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s order was vexatious. 罌厭弝ⅰAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The 罌厭弝ⅰAT...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-609, Siri

22 Jan 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT judgment.

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-641, Chemingui

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not ※clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction§ when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ※appointment, promotion, or termination§ excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute. Accordingly, 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-820, Newland

22 Mar 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant＊s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s finding that...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-816, Harris

22 Mar 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of 罌厭弝ⅰDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the...

2020-罌厭弝ⅰAT-998, Barud

27 Mar 2020

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 罌厭弝ⅰAT on her application for a suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

2020-罌厭弝ⅰAT-979, Igunda

27 Mar 2020

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

2021-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1145, Jacques Armand

29 Oct 2021

罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained 罌厭弝ⅰDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT 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 罌厭弝ⅰDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.